Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Glasgow Boundaries Order Confirmation Bill,

Read a Second time; and ordered to be considered To-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply has been returned to General Franco's notification that he considers he has the right to declare a blockade of the Spanish coasts?

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): His Majesty's Ambassador at Hendaye has been instructed to inform the Salamanca authorities that as belligerent rights have not been recognised to either party in the Spanish conflict. His Majesty's Government are not prepared to admit their right to declare any such blockade. His Majesty's Ambassador has also been instructed to warn the Salamanca authorities against any interference with British shipping trading with Spanish ports, and to make it clear that such shipping will continue to be protected as hitherto.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Has it also been made clear that we do not intend to tolerate a repetition of the humiliating incidents off Bilbao and Santander?

Captain Ramsay: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the Valencia Government are now engaged on promoting a scheme for inducing this country to intervene on the pretext of proposing terms of truce; and will he assure this House that he will

only consider such action if requested to do so spontaneously by both sides?

Mr. Eden: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The second part does not, therefore, arise.

Captain Ramsay: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that he will not be drawn into any form of intervention to bring pressure on either side in Spain?

Mr. Eden: I do not know about bringing pressure, but certainly His Majesty's Government will do everything in their power to bring hostilities to an end.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the suggestion in the question that the Valencia Government have made proposals to His Majesty's Government on this matter, is grossly in accurate?

Mr. Eden: I have had no approaches from anybody.

Miss Rathbone: Is it the case that the Spanish Government have completely repudiated any such intention?

Mr. Parker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the names of the ships legally flying the British flag which have been captured by the Spanish in surgent forces; the dates of their capture and release; position when captured; whether on the high seas or in territorial waters; the port in which detained; the reasons given for their capture and detention; whether their cargoes were confiscated; and what claims have been for warded to the insurgent authorities?

Mr. Eden: Ten ships were captured at various dates. All have been released. As the desired particulars are of considerable length, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT. AS regards the question of claims, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) on 10th November.

Colonel Wedgwood: Were the cargoes confiscated or were they restored?

Mr. Eden: The details are in the answer, which is rather long.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it true that they have made no advance in connection with these claims?

Mr. Eden: No, Sir.

Following are the particulars:

1. Steamship "Molton": Captured 14th July, detained at Bilbao, released 9th September.
2. Steamship "Candlestone Castle": Captured 18th July, detained at Ferrol, released nth September.
3. Steamship "Mirupanu": Captured on 24th July, detained at Ferrol, released 13th November.
4. Steamship "Caper": Captured on 10th August, detained at Ferrol, released 15th October.
5. Steamship "Burlington": Captured on 30th August, detained at Palma, released 20th September.
6. Steamship "Seven Seas Spray": Captured 1st September, detained at Santoña, released 31st October.
7. Steamship "Stanwold": Captured 8th September, detained at Ferrol, released 1st November.
8. Steamship "Bobie": Captured 3rd October, detained at Ferrol, released 13th November.
9. Steamship "Dover Abbey": Captured 5th October, detained at Ferrol, released 13th November.
10. Steamship "Yorkbrook": Captured on 5th October, detained at Ferrol, released 20th November.

It is not possible to give the exact position of all these ships at the time of capture, though it is certain that the "Molton," "Candlestone Castle," "Mirupanu," "Seven Seas Spray" and "Stanwold" were captured within territorial waters. I cannot undertake to interpret to the House the reasons for which the Salamanca authority acted in respect of these ships. I understand that the cargoes of the "Mirupanu," "Candlestone Castle," "Caper," "Burlington" and "Stanwold" were confiscated.

Mr. Parker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the names of ships legally flying the British flag which have been fired at, sunk, or damaged by mine, torpedo, bomb, gun, or machine-gun fire on the high seas in the Mediterranean, Atlantic, and Bay of Biscay, respectively, since the outbreak of the Spanish civil war; the position when attacked and, where known, who was responsible; and what claims have been forwarded to the responsible authorities?

Mr. Eden: I regret that the provision of the information desired by the hon. Member involves a considerable amount of research in files running back for well over a year. It has been quite impossible to embark on this task in the time available. If the hon. Member persists in his desire that this work should be undertaken, perhaps he will be good enough to repeat his question at a later date.

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the position with regard to the working of non-intervention in Spain; whether satisfactory replies have now been received from the Spanish Government and General Franco; and whether provisional arrangements have been made for the formation and despatch of a com mission of inspection and how soon it is expected to visit Spain?

Mr. Eden: The Chairman's Sub-Committee of the Non-intervention Committee met yesterday to consider the replies received from the two parties in Spain to the proposals for the withdrawal of foreign volunteers. The Sub-Committee found that these replies were of such a nature as to enable them to continue their task. The Sub-Committee then proceeded to consider the methods of constituting the two commissions which it is proposed to send to Spain. The hon. Member will recall that the Resolution of 4th November related the withdrawal both to the reinforcement of the observation scheme and to the grant of belligerent rights. There are, therefore, a number of questions which will need to be considered by the Committee before the Resolution of 4th November can be put into effect, and there are also particular points raised in the replies of both the parties in Spain. I can only assure the hon. Member that, so far as His Majesty's Government are concerned, everything is being done to expedite the Committee's work.

Mr. Mander: Have provisional steps been taken to select the chairman and other members of the Commission so that in the event of agreement being reached no time will be lost, and there can be an immediate despatch of business?

Mr. Eden: A great deal of preliminary work has been done both as to personnel and the terms of reference.

Sir Patrick Hannon: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the work of the


Non-Intervention Committee is not being seriously embarrassed at the moment by the presence of the Leader of the Opposition in Spain?

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS (CONTRIBUTIONS).

Mr. Graham White: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the League of Nations Budget Committee approved the proposal to refund substantial sums of money to the member States of the League of Nations; how many Swiss gold francs it is anticipated will be re turned to this country; and whether His Majesty's Government will favourably consider devoting the whole or part of this refund to some of the humanitarian work of the League?

Mr. Eden: The Financial Regulations of the League require that the difference between the actual receipts and the expenditure for each financial year shall be entered in the budget of the second year following, and, if this difference constitutes a credit balance, shall be used to effect a corresponding reduction of the sum to be collected from the members of the League by way of contribution for that year. In the 1938 budget, which was approved by this year's Assembly, the sum allocated for the reduction of contributions was 1,875,394 gold francs. Of this sum 220,058 gold francs will be set off against the United Kingdom contribution. As this sum is not refunded but is used to effect a reduction in the later year's contribution, the last part of the question does not arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA AND JAPAN.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the latest information available as to the composition and position of Japanese naval, military, and air forces in the proximity of Hong Kong?

Mr. Eden: I have no statement to make on this subject.

Mr. Mander: Can the right hon. (Gentleman assure us that it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to defend Hong Kong in all circumstances?

Mr. Eden: The hon. Member must know very Well that it has been stated over and

over again that His Majesty's Government will defend all British possessions wherever they may be.

Mr. Day: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply His Majesty's Government has received from the Japanese Government concerning the position of the Chinese Maritime Customs at Shanghai; and will he give particulars of the replies that have been made by the Japanese Government to similar representations made by the United States of America and French Governments?

Mr. Arthur Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now make a statement as to the result of recent negotiations with the Japanese Government in respect of the Chinese Customs?

Mr. Eden: As the House is aware. His Majesty's Ambassador at Tokyo made representations on this matter to the Japanese Minister for Foreign Affairs at the end of November. The latter then assured him that due consideration would be given to the views of foreign Powers. Meanwhile discussions at Shanghai are still proceeding. I have received no information from the United States and French Governments with regard to replies given to their representatives.

Mr. Day: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Japanese Government now admit that foreign Governments should have some say in the matter of the Chinese Customs?

Mr. Eden: Yes. I think that is quite clear from my answer.

Mr. A. Henderson: In whose custody are the proceeds of the Customs duties now being paid in respect of goods going into China?

Mr. Eden: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question down.

Mr. Riley: Has any consideration been given to foreign interests, as promised?

Mr. Eden: I have given the reply that has been returned. I am expecting a further reply. Meanwhile, these conversations are going on.

Mr. Day: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs particulars of any reports he has received from His Majesty's representative in Shanghai as to whether the restrictions have now been


withdrawn that were placed upon British subjects by the Japanese authorities preventing their entering or having access to their houses or places of business in the International Settlement at Shanghai?

Mr. Eden: The most recent report which I have received shows that, while there is reason to anticipate the withdrawal of the restrictions at an early date, the Japanese military authorities have not yet announced the date of reopening. Every effort is being made, however, to hasten the issue of the necessary orders.

Mr. Day: Is it safe for British subjects to return and do business there?

Mr. Eden: That is one of the matters under consideration.

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware of the recognition of Manchukuo as an independent State by the Italian Government in breach of its obligations under the Covenant of the League of Nations; and whether His Majesty's Government propose to take any action at Geneva in support of the protest made by the Chinese Government?

Mr. Eden: I am aware of the action to which the hon. Member refers, and which appears to be inconsistent with the recommendation of the report unanimously adopted by the Assembly of the League of Nations on 24th September, 1933. As regards the second part of the question, it does not appear that any action is called for by the terms of the protest made by the Chinese Government.

Mr. Henderson: In view of the fact that Italy is a member of the Council of the League, does the right hon. Gentleman not consider that their action justifies some notice being taken by the Council of the League?

Mr. Eden: I cannot answer for the Italian Government. The views as to their action are a matter of opinion. The protest of the Chinese Government does not call for any action.

Mr. Henderson: Is not this a matter for the League, in view of the fact that the Italian Government is a member of the Council?

Mr. Mander: Have not they done this in order to assist in the prevention of Bolshevism in Manchukuo?

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the failure of the Brussels Conference to recommend any action in defence of China, it is proposed to convene a meeting of the Far Eastern Advisory Committee of the League of Nations to consider the Sino-Japanese conflict in relation to the obligations of the member States of the League under the Covenant to resist Japanese aggression?

Mr. Eden: The chairman of the Far Eastern Advisory Committee has stated his intention of convoking the Committee at such time as might appear desirable, having in view the work of the Brussels Conference and taking account of any proposals which his colleagues might make to him. So far as I am aware, no Government has proposed such a meeting.

Mr. Henderson: When the meeting takes place will His Majesty's Government send its representatives there to take the lead and not to follow the hounds?

Mr. Thorne: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that the time has arrived when the Governments of the world should have a little bit more common sense?

Mr. McEntee: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the arrival in this country of Viscount Ishii from Japan, to conduct a propagandist mission in justification of Japan's attack on China; and whether the opportunity will be taken of his visit to demand an explanation or apology for the various attacks on British subjects or soldiers in China?

Mr. Eden: I understand that Viscount Ishii has stated that he is paying a purely private visit to Europe, and there could, therefore, be no question of making to him the representations suggested in the second half of the question. As the House is aware, representations have in any case already been made through His Majesty's Ambassador in Tokyo, who is the proper channel.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION.

BANGKOK-HONG KONG SERVICE.

Captain Alan Graham: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether Imperial Airways, Limited,


have direectly or indirectly sought the aid of His Majesty's Minister in Bangkok towards establishing a Bangkok-Hong Kong air service; whether such aid was forthcoming; and what were the reasons for the failure to secure such an important route?
(2) if he will state the reason for the recent failure of Imperial Airways, Limited, to obtain a Bangkok-Hong Kong service at a time when this would have been of the utmost value to Imperial communications?

Mr. Eden: His Majesty's Representative at Bangkok has been conducting negotiations with the Siamese Government, and I am happy to be able to state that formal agreement was reached on 3rd December and recorded in an Exchange of Notes, which will be laid before the House in due course. I understand that arrangements have now been made to inaugurate the service from Bangkok on 19th December.

IMPERIAL AIRWAYS, LIMITED (MOTOR-BOATS).

Mr. Perkins: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether the Air Ministry have supplied Imperial Airways, Limited, with any motor-boats; if so, how many; and whether any payment has been made to the Air Ministry for these boats?

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): Under the agreements for operation of the Empire services the Air Ministry is responsible for providing or arranging for the pro vision at certain stopping places on the Empire routes of all ground services and ground equipment which are essential aids to navigation. Motor-boats are included in such equipment, the total numbers at present involved being approximately 80. The cost of upkeep of these boats is borne by the Air Ministry or the local government concerned, but the arrangements provide for debiting Imperial Airways for the use of the boats when employed for purposes of the company other than those specified in the agreements.

MAYBURY COMMITTEE'S REPORT.

Mr. Perkins: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air how often the Maybury report was revised before being

finally issued; and how often it was sent back by the Air Ministry to the committee to be re-written?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: The report of the Maybury Committee was published as received from the Committee, and they were never asked to revise or alter their report.

Mr. Short: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether any air company has offered, with or without subsidy, to carry out the air junction scheme of the Maybury report?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: One company has put forward a proposal to carry out the air junction scheme of the Maybury report on certain conditions including an adequate subsidy. It is not intended that any subsidy should be paid to the company or companies operating the junction scheme.

Mr. Short: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us the name of the company?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: Yes, it is Utility Airways, Limited.

Mr. Short: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether it is proposed to adopt the air junction scheme of the Maybury report; and, if so, what assistance will be given to the Doncaster and other municipal aerodromes on the East Coast to enable them to maintain their services?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: The Government have accepted in principle the desirability of a junction scheme. As regards the last part of the question, the Maybury Committee reported against direct subsidies to civil aerodromes and the Government decided to maintain their policy in that respect. The Government in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee will provide, maintain and operate radio facilities, a meteorological organisation and a comprehensive air traffic control organisation.

Mr. Short: Is the Secretary of State considering the adoption of the air junction scheme of the Maybury report; and, if he adopts it, will that mean that the aerodromes on the East Coast will become derelict?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: No, Sir. The Government have accepted the general


recommendations of the Maybury Committee which include the principle of the desirability of a junction scheme, but actually whether the scheme is to be operated or not, will depend on the applications from companies who can work it. No selection of a particular place for the junction has yet been made.

Mr. Perkins: Can these matters be brought before the Cadman Committee?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: Perhaps the hon. Member would ask the Cadman Committee and hear what they say?

PASSENGER FATALITIES.

Mr. Perkins: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the total number of fare-paying passengers who have lost their lives since 1st June, 1934, while flying in Air France machines, and similar figures for Imperial Airways, Limited?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: The figures are 3 and 16 respectively.

Mr. Hulbert: Is it not a fact that Imperial Airways carry more fare-paying passengers than any other operating company and that they have the greatest reputation for safety of any company?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: Imperial Air ways have an extremely good reputation for safety.

Mr. George Griffiths: Do not Imperial Airways get a bigger subsidy from this Government than any other air company in the world?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE.

Sir Nicholas Grattan-Doyle: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the conditions which necessitate wives and children of men serving in the Royal Navy having recourse to relief from public assistance committees; and whether, in view of the undesirability of this state of affairs, he proposes to remedy it?

The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Duff Cooper): The special difficulties of men serving in the Navy who have married below 25, the qualifying age for marriage allowance, have always been realised, and formed the subject of further

representations made by their officers to the Board of Admiralty some weeks ago As a result, the Admiralty are endeavouring to arrange that all cases of actual distress which cannot be dealt with by the Royal Naval Benevolent Trust will be sympathetically considered by the Admiralty Family Welfare Sections at the Home ports to whom they should be represented.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult the Secretary of State for War and the Secretary of State for Air with a view to reducing the age of 25, at which they qualify for marriage allowance?

Mr. Cooper: That is a question of general policy. I am always prepared to consider any suggestions put forward by hon. Members, but whether it would be wise to enter into consultation with other Departments I am not prepared to say.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that it is undesirable that the Navy should be maintained by the Unemployment Assistance Board?

Mr. Paling: In view of the alarm in the country at the decrease in the birth rate, will the right hon. Gentleman get into touch with the Minister of Health and hear what he has to say about it?

Mr. Day: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the date of the last occasion on which the marriage allowance pay able to married ratings was reviewed; and whether, in view of the increased cost of living, he is prepared to recommend any further alteration?

Mr. Cooper: Marriage allowance is paid on a sliding scale, the rate of allowances for the 12 months from April to March being determined annually by the cost-of-living index figure on the preceding 1st January. The existing rate due to change in the cost-of-living figure came into operation 1st April, 1931. It will be remember, however, that as from 1st October, 1936, the basic allowance for a wife only, for men on the 1925 scale of pay, was increased by 3s weekly, the rates of allowances for children remaining as before.

Mr. Day: Do I understand that the Minister is giving the matter his consideration?

Mr. Cooper: It will be fully considered in the natural course of events.

Mr. H. G. Williams: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the case of the officers has recently been reviewed?

AIRCRAFT CARRIER "FURIOUS" (MAN'S DEATH).

Mr. Thorne: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can now give the House any information in connection with the death of the man Marples who was found in the sealed cabin on board the aircraft-carrier "Furious," stationed at Plymouth; and whether the wallet that was taken from his pocket has been found?

Mr. Cooper: The verdict at the inquest was that the deceased died from shock and haemorrhage on 23rd November following a fracture of the skull and laceration of the brain as the result of an accidental fall down the ship's ladder on the previous night. The cabin was not sealed, and though Mr. Marples is stated to have been in the habit of carrying a wallet there appears to be no evidence that it was on his person at the time of his fatal accident.

Mr. Thorne: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the report of the commandant in connection with this wallet and its disappearance?

Mr. Cooper: I have read the report and all the evidence given at the inquest.

ARTIFICER APPRENTICES (PROMOTION).

Sir Robert Young: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the number of apprentices who can be promoted to the rank of cadet E is two per year; and whether he has considered the advisability of increasing the number of such promotions; and, if so, with what result?

Mr. Cooper: There is now no restriction on the number of promotions from artificer apprentice to cadet E and all candidates who come up to the required standard are accepted. Three promotions have been made during the current year.

CHARGEMEN (PAY).

Mr. Ralph Beaumont: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is now in a position to state to what extent the claim of the Chargemen's Association for increased rates of charge-pay can be met by the Admiralty?

Captain Plugge: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is now in a position to make any announcement with regard to the extent to which it will be possible to meet the claim of the Chargemen's Association for a revision of the present basis of charge-pay; when the proposed new scales will be brought into effect; and what will be the approximate cost of such action?

Lieut.-Colonel Guest: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the precise nature of the award of the Industrial Court upon the claim of the Chargemen's Association for a revision of charge pay for chargemen in Admiralty dockyards; and when this award will be put into effect by his Department?

Mr. Cooper: The rates of charge pay in Admiralty industrial establishments at home have recently been the subject of an award by the Industrial Court. As the details of the award are somewhat involved I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I am also sending a full copy of the award to each of the hon. Gentlemen who have put questions on this subject. It is not possible at this stage to form any reliable estimate of the cost of applying the award, which will take effect from 3rd December.

Captain Plugge: Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the Admiralty confer with the Chargemen's Association when arranging to put into effect the award granted by the Industrial Court?

Mr. Cooper: Every effort will be made to facilitate putting into effect the award.

Mr. Maitland: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to send a copy of the award to hon. Members who represent dockyard constituencies?

Mr. Cooper: If they ask for it, yes.

Mr. Maitland: May I ask for a copy?

Following is the statement:

Hitherto chargemen of trades, of minor and titular grades and all chargemen on the permanent list in Admiralty industrial establishments at home have received, in addition to their basic rates of pay and bonus as workmen, charge pay on a scale ranging from 8s. to 12s. a week. In addition, when they have supervised men remunerated on systems of payment by


results, they have received an allowance at the rate of 6s., 9s. or 12s. a week, according to the number of such men supervised. In future all chargemen, coming within the scope of the award, whether supervising men paid by results or not, will be eligible to receive in lieu of both these allowances a scale of allowance rising from 15s. to 24s. a week by annual increments of 1s. But chargemen now serving may, if they so desire, receive instead, charge pay on a scale rising from 9s. to 16s. a week by annual increments of IS. and, if they supervise piece workers, continue to draw the allowance for such supervision on the same scale as before. Should they decide to accept this alternative method of payment, their choice will be irrevocable. Chargemen may enter the new scales of pay with the benefit of the number of increments corresponding to the number of years of their service in this grade.

WARRANT OFFICERS.

Mr. R. Beaumont: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether there is any shortage of candidates for warrant rank in the Navy; and, if so, what steps are being taken to rectify the matter?

Mr. Cooper: There is no shortage of candidates except in the branches of gunner, gunner (T), and boatswain. As my hon. Friend will be aware, the shortage in these branches has been investigated by a committee, whose recommendations the Admiralty have had under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE.

LAW OFFICERS.

Colonel Wedgwood: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the name of the Palestine public prosecutor; and, in view of the fact that this is the post which the Royal Commission recommended on page 167 should be held by an Englishman, why no change has been made?

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): There is no officer with the title of public prosecutor in Pales tine. The Attorney-General in Palestine is responsible for public prosecutions, and his office is being strengthened by the appointment of two British Crown counsel. The Palestine Government have, in fact, gone beyond the recommendation of the

Royal Commission who suggested the addition of one British senior Government advocate only.

Colonel Wedgwood: May I ask what is the title of the office now held by Alauni Bey, brother-in-law of Jemal Husseini, who used to be called public prosecutor?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I understand that he is still a member of the legal department. At present he is absent on leave, and it is not possible to say on what work in the department he will be employed when he returns to duty. I should like to add that I can find no reason to suppose that he is not a loyal servant of the Department.

Colonel Wedgwood: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that he had the title of public prosecutor and that was the position which was criticised by the Royal Commission under the name of Government Advocate. Is he in future to have any official position in the Palestine Government?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Yes. As I have said he is a member of the legal department, but I understand he has never been public prosecutor. He was in the Attorney-General's office, and, as I have stated, two British Crown counsel have been added to the Attorney-General's office to perform functions which in this country are performed by the Public Prosecutor.

IMMIGRATION.

Colonel Wedgwood: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the statement by the Royal Commission in Palestine that immigration increased economic absorbtive capacity; and whether this view is confirmed by his experience as regards colonies generally?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I presume that the right hon. Gentleman is referring to paragraph 76 of Chapter X of the Royal Commission's report. It is clear from the wording of the paragraph that the Commissioners' remarks had reference to the special conditions governing Jewish immigration into Palestine. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

Colonel Wedgwood: Does the right hon. Gentleman disagree with the statement of the Royal Commission that the more immigrants who enter into a country the greater the prosperity?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Yes, I disagree. It is entirely a question of the amount of work available and the amount of capital. The return of the West Indian labourers from Cuba to Jamaica has not increased the economic absorptive capacity and output of Jamaica.

Colonel Wedgwood: Does the right hon. Gentleman not appreciate that an emigrant makes as much work as he takes?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Not necessarily.

TERRORIST ACTIVITIES.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has a detailed statement to make as to the situation in Palestine; and whether terrorist activities are now effectively dealt with?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Since my last statement on 24th November there has been a few further outrages involving loss of life. As the hon. Member will have learnt from the Press, several cases have already been heard by the military courts and in one case a sentence of death was imposed and duly carried out. I am satisfied that all appropriate steps are being taken to deal effectively with the terrorist activities.

Mr. Gallacher: Is not the origin of these outrages the failure of the British Government to carry out the Mandate?

Mr. Speaker: That is an entirely different question.

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can make any statement regarding the recent ambush of three and murder of two Arab policemen in Palestine; and whether any of the terrorists responsible have been captured?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I understand that three Arab policemen on patrol were captured by a body of Arab bandits who shot two of them. The third escaped by feigning death. Troops and police have been sent in search of the murderers, but I have not yet heard whether they have established contact.

POLICY.

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is proposed at any stage to set up a joint committee of both Houses of Parliament to consider plans for the future of Palestine?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I am unable at present to add anything to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member on 21st October.

Mr. Mander: Do I understand that it is not necessarily ruled out at some future stage?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: That must be seen at a very much later stage.

Mr. T. Williams: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any idea as to when he contemplates sending the Boundary Commission to Palestine?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Not at present.

Colonel Wedgwood: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will circulate the names and offices of the 137 officials of the Palestine judiciary and Department of Justice and other Departments of the Palestine Government who, on 30th June, 1936, sent a memorandum to the Palestine Government condemning its policy; and, in view of the opinion expressed by the chairman of the Mandates Commission of the League of Nations, he will say what action he has taken in the case of each officer concerned?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I see no advantage in taking action on the lines suggested in the first part of the question, and I am not prepared to do so. As regards the second part, I have nothing to add to what I have already stated in my reply to the hon. Member for East Wolver hampton (Mr. Mander) on 18th November.

Colonel Wedgwood: Are we to understand that no action is being taken or is contemplated in connection with the disloyal action of these members of the Civil Service, and may I ask whether the new High Commissioner who is going out has any instructions to eliminate from the Civil Service disloyal members and to make the rest of the Civil Service obey orders?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I do not feel it would be proper for me to answer that very improper question—

Colonel Wedgwood: rose—

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: —and may I protest?

Colonel Wedgwood: On a point of Order. I want to know from you, Sir, whether it is proper for a Minister on that bench to insult a Member who asks a question?

Mr. Speaker: I think the fault lies with me for allowing the supplementary question.

Mr. T. Williams: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has had any information since June or July, 1936, as to whether or not any of these 137 civil servants have committed actions of disloyalty?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The Palestine Civil Service is working in very difficult conditions, and is most loyally carrying out the policy of the Government.

Colonel Wedgwood: On a point of Order. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether—[Interruption.]

Mr. Gallacher: Cannot you feed the animals and keep them quiet?

Colonel Wedgwood: On a point of Order. I should like to call attention on the earliest possible opportunity to the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman opposite.

JAFFA (EDUCATIONAL AND HEALTH SERVICES).

Mr. T. Williams: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the educational and health services provided for the residents in the Jewish quarter of Jaffa have cost the municipality of Tel-Aviv some £15,000, but that these residents are not held to be taxable by that municipality; and whether he will arrange to have this matter investigated at the earliest possible opportunity, with a view to remedying the injustice involved in keeping these quarters under the jurisdiction of another municipality which does not provide them with essential municipal services?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I have no information about this matter, but I am asking the High Commissioner for a report.

ASSASSINATED OFFICIALS (DEPENDANTS).

Sir John Mellor: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the undertaking given in Palestine that, in the event of the assassination of an

official in the course of his duty, the question of a special award to his dependants will be sympathetically considered in the light of all the circumstances, has reference to all persons employed in the public service in Palestine, both civil and military?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The undertaking refers to civil officers in the employment of the Palestine Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — TANGANYIKA (LABOUR SITUATION).

Mr. Paling: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the committee appointed in Tanganyika Territory to examine the labour situation has completed its work and when its report will be available?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I understand that the report is being presented to the Governor this week, and that immediate arrangements will be made for its printing and publication.

Oral Answers to Questions — BERMUDA.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the report of the Select Committee on Unemployment in Bermuda, which has recommended as a remedy for the excessive population the compulsory sterilisation of certain categories of persons, including the fathers of one illegitimate child and the mothers of two illegitimate children; whether any of the proposals have been incorporated in the Bill presented by the Governor of Bermuda to the Legislative Council; and whether His Majesty's Government regard them as a satisfactory solution of the problem of umemployment in Bermuda?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: As regards the first part of the question, the answer is in the affirmative. As regards the remainder of the question, I am informed by the Governor of Bermuda that none of the proposals relating to sterilisation made by the Select Committee have been incorporated in any Bill, and that no such Bill is contemplated.

Mr. Adams: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the apparent necessity of proposals of this


nature and the generally disturbed condition of Bermuda, there should not be a White Paper issued for the information of the House?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: There is no generally disturbed condition in Bermuda. As the hon. Member knows, Bermuda has enjoyed representative government and institutions for a long time. This was a proposal by a local Select Committee.

Mr. Adams: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the population of Bermuda, white and coloured, respectively; the number of each who have the parliamentary franchise; and the qualication required for this right and that required for membership of the house of assembly?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Turton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the white and coloured populations of Bermuda are living together in perfect harmony, and that the attempt of the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. David Adams) to stir up racial hatred will be resented by them?

Mr. Adams: Arising out of the answer and the hon. Member's interjection, is the Minister aware that there is great discontent there, and that the coloured population do not enjoy equal rights?

Following is the reply:

Estimated population as at 31st December, 1936:


White
…
…
12,037


Coloured
…
…
18,515


Total
…
…
30,552

Number of persons having the Parliamentary franchise as at 31st December, 1936:


White
…
…
1,335


Coloured
…
…
1,018


Total
…
…
2,353

Qualification for franchise:

The electors are all persons being males and 21 years of age or over whose names appear on the register as being possessed in their own right, or in right of their wives, within the electoral parish,

or receiving the profits of a freehold rated at the last parish assessment at not less than £60. A person paying the prescribed fee or acquiring an adequate freehold by marriage, marriage settlement, descent or will, or entitled to be registered in respect of his wife's real estate, may be registered at any period of the year. Other persons can only be registered at the annual revision. The qualification for a member of the Assembly is the possession of a freehold rated at £240. The rating for a voter and a candidate is the assessed value of the property as assessed by each parish.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN RHODESIA.

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what changes have recently been effected in the constitution of Northern Rhodesia?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: After consultation with the Governor of Northern Rhodesia, I recently informed him that I have approved a proposal, made by the elected members of the Legislative Council, that the numbers of official and unofficial members on the Council should be equalised by the addition of a nominated unofficial member to represent native interests, and the reduction by one of the number of official members. I also authorised the continuation and confirmation of the existing practice whereby elected members are consulted, when ever possible, on major questions of administrative and financial policy, and serve as members of various advisory boards and are represented at the annual conference of Provincial Commissioners. The new nominated unofficial member would be included in this consultation.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIES (STATISTICS).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the total square mileage of territory for which he is responsible; the total British, non-British white, and coloured population, respectively; the total value of production in the last available year; and, approximately, how much of the above refers to mandated areas?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: As the answer involves a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

(a) Total square mileage of the Colonial Empire, 2,250,000 square miles.
(b) Population: White 1,500,000, Coloured over 55,000,000.
(c) Value of exports of domestic produce in 1936: About £170,000,000.

(These figures include those for Transjordan (mandated territory), the South Africa High Commission territories and Aden.)

It is regretted that it is not possible to divide the white population into "British" and "non-British," as in the majority of the Colonies, etc., the white population is shown only as "European."

The figures for the three mandated territories in Africa are as follow:

(a) 407,000 square miles.
(b) 9,000 White; 6,500,000 Coloured.
(c) £5,250,000.

The area of Palestine and Transjordan is approximately 45,000 square miles; the population consists of approximately 796,000 Moslems, 384,000 Jews, 109,000 Christians and 11,000 others making a total of 1,300,000; and the value of domestic exports in 1936 amounted to £3,750,000.

It is not possible to estimate the value of the total production in the Colonial Empire, as much of the produce is consumed locally. In the circumstances the figures given above are those of the value of domestic produce exported.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALAYA (TEXTILE IMPORTS).

Sir Percy Harris: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies on whose initiative it has been decided to impose new quotas on textiles imported into Malaya?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The initiative came from the local Government after the fullest local investigation. For the reasons stated in the communiqué issued to the Press, the change has been made with the complete approval of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom.

Sir P. Harris: Are we to gather that the unofficial minority representing the people who live in the district approved this policy, or was it merely an official

majority who approved it? Is that not another example of stimulating world trade by putting new obstacles in the way of the passage of goods?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: If the hon. Baronet will read the communique, he will see that under the working of the quota proposed some time ago in Malaya, in particular classes of goods various adjustments have to be made. It is obviously a matter for local experience. It is worked out mainly by the Customs Department, which has to deal with this matter.

Sir Arthur Salter: Will these changes on the whole have the effect of increasing prices for the inhabitants of Malaya?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I should not have thought so. I believe foreign trade is, as a matter of fact, very little affected. Certain classes of Japanese goods may be affected.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

AERODROME, FINNINGLEY (LAND ACQUISITION).

Mr. Short: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether the arbiter has given his award in connection with the claim for £20,923 in respect of the acquisition by the Air Ministry of 404 acres of land for the Finningley Royal Air Force aerodrome, near Doncaster; if so, what the award was; and what was the previous net rateable value of the property in question?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: The arbitrator's award was £11,584. The property was wholly agricultural and derated except for one set of small farm buildings the previous rateable value of which is not known.

Mr. H. G. Williams: Will my hon. and gallant Friend circulate a White Paper explaining to hon. Members opposite that all agricultural land is derated?

Mr. T. Williams: May I ask the relevant question whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman has any idea of the ordinary cost of similar land to be used for agricultural purposes?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I cannot state that as a general principle, but in this instance, the average cost of the land works out at £29 an acre, which is not on the whole excessive.

RESERVE (INSURANCE PREMIUMS).

Sir N. Grattan-Doyle: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that insurance companies require an extra premium from members of the Royal Air Force Reserve who, when insuring their lives, desire to be covered against war risks; and whether, as the members of the reserve receive no pay, he will consider indemnifying them in respect of such additional premium as may be reasonable?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I am aware that members of the Royal Air Force Reserve, who, when insuring their lives, desire to be covered against risks which may arise in peace or war in virtue of their membership of the Reserve, are required by insurance companies to pay an extra premium: and this matter, in so far as it affects all non-regular personnel exposed to such risk, is under consideration.

TRAINING FACILITIES, WEST MIDLANDS.

Mr. Mander: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air when the new Birmingham municipal port will be available for the purposes of the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve training; and what steps are being taken in the meantime to provide more facilities in the West Midlands?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: It is hoped that the airport in question will be ready for Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve training in the late summer of next year. In the meantime, every effort will be made both to increase the facilities already available and to provide further facilities for training at other centres in the West Midlands.

Mr. Mander: In view of the fact that the Birmingham airport will not be ready for another eight months, what steps in regard to aerodromes are being taken in the meantime; and will service machines be available instead of merely training machines?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: Negotiations for a new centre have been opened at Stoke-on-Trent and, if necessary, another centre will be opened near Coventry. With regard to machines, perhaps the hon. Member will put that question down.

Mr. Short: Will there be any subsidy for Doncaster?

STRENGTH.

Mr. Garro Jones: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air how many of the 123 squadrons in the Metropolitan Air Force are commanded by squadron-leaders; how many are 25 per cent. or more below strength in aircraft of the service type alloted to them; how many are 25 per cent. or more below strength in pilots; and how many are 25 per cent. or more below strength in technical personnel of other ranks?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: The answer to the first part of the question is that 121 squadrons are commanded by officers of the rank of squadron-leader or above; to the second part, two regular and five auxiliary squadrons; to the third part, one regular and six auxiliary squadrons, and to the last part, none in so far as essential technical personnel is concerned.

COMMUNICATIONS.

Mr. Garro Jones: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether there has been planned and prepared, to meet the contingency of the disablement of Air Ministry communications by enemy action either against the Ministry or the General Post Office, any alternative headquarters site and means of communication between units?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I regret I cannot add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member on 1st December last. I am sure the House will appreciate that it would be quite impossible to disclose strategic and operational plans.

Mr. Garro Jones: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that I made no such request to him, but that I am merely asking him for an assurance that plans have been made for some alternative headquarters in the event of the destruction of the Air Ministry communications, and how can it be contrary to the public interest to give an assurance on that point? Is he further aware that there is widespread concern in informed quarters at the lack of planning in the Air Ministry for meeting this contingency?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I naturally appreciate that there is widespread concern among the public generally that there should be adequate planning necessary for the defences of the country, but I


confess I am not aware that there is widespread concern that the necessary precautions are not being taken. As I informed the hon. Member last week, all possible precautions are being taken to cover contingencies of the nature indicated in the hon. Member's question, but I am sure that he and the House will appreciate that it is extremely difficult and likely to be very much against the public interest to become involved in question and answer on a matter of this kind.

Mr. Garro Jones: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that he is not the only person who is concerned for the public interest in this matter, and will he state specifically whether the elementary precaution has been taken of providing alternative means of communication and an alternative site for the present Air Ministry?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I hope I did not give the impression to the House that I thought I was the only person concerned. I was rather particular to indicate at the beginning of my remarks that I was naturally well aware that there was widespread concern that the best possible precautions should be taken. I will again bring to the hon. Member's notice the answer to the question to which I referred, when I said that all possible precautions are being taken to cover contingencies of the nature indicated in the hon. Member's question, and I think that really indicates that the matter is thoroughly before the Air Ministry.

Mr. David Grenfell: Is not the hon. and gallant Gentleman of the opinion that this is the first and most essential of all air-raid precautions, and should not the House receive the assurance asked for by the hon. Gentleman?

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT (SCOTLAND).

Mr. J. J. Davidson: asked the Prime Minister whether he will set up a Royal Commission to investigate and make recommendations for the maximum agricultural development of land in Scotland now lying dormant and unproductive?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): The Government are already providing

assistance designed to increase the productivity of agricultural land, and I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by setting up a Royal Commission to inquire into lands now uncultivated. I would remind the hon. Member that any steps to bring unproductive land into cultivation must have regard to the probable cost of the foodstuffs which; it could produce.

Mr. Davidson: Is the Prime Minister aware that in the last answer on this subject from the Secretary of State for Scotland, the information given was to the effect that no progress was being made with regard to agricultural produce in Scotland; and, in view of the fact that many agricultural experts agree that there is land unused there, which could be used for productive purposes, will he not at least set up some kind of inquiry, in the interests of the nation's food supply?

The Prime Minister: I do not think I can add anything to the answer which I have already given.

Mr. Emmott: Cannot the Scottish people be relied upon to extract the utmost possible advantage from the land that Providence has bestowed upon them?

Mr. Mathers: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a huge and growing area in Scotland devoted to deer forests and that not only is that land itself barren, but the existence and increasing numbers of the deer, cause other land, bordering upon it, to be devastated from an agricultural point of view?

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Prime Minister aware that much of Scotland can be classified as a depressed area and will he not, therefore, make a special effort in this respect?

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE.

CO-ORDINATION.

Mr. Garro Jones: asked the Prime Minister whether plans are complete for the co-ordination and unified command of the three Services in the event of war; and whether any form of personal command or machinery charged with this function, other than the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence, is in existence to-day which was not in existence in 1918?

The Prime Minister: In reply to the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to my answer to a similar question on 30th November. As regards the second part of the question, the whole subject has been studied in the light of the Great War and of subsequent experience. The present arrangements provide for the fullest use of the machinery of the Committee of Imperial Defence, which has been very much ex tended since 1918, including such developments as the Chiefs of Staff and Joint Planning Sub-Committees.

Mr. Garro Jones: Can the Prime Minister say whether the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence has undertaken any strategic co-ordination between the three Defence Services?

The Prime Minister: Perhaps the hon. Member would put that question down.

Mr. Garro Jones: May I, with great respect, ask the Prime Minister whether he is not aware that that is at the very root of the question on the Paper; and that being so, am I not entitled to a reply on this occasion?

The Prime Minister: It may be at the root, but it does not appear above the ground.

FALMOUTH COMMITTEE'S REPORT.

Mr. A. Edwards: asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether, before the report of the Falmouth Committee is completed, he will satisfy him self that all processes at present working commercially have been examined; and whether the claims of all others which have offered evidence will be published with the report?

The Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence (Sir Thomas Inskip): As I informed the hon. Member last week, the Falmouth Committee have completed their report. I have to-day received it. As regards the second part of the question, until I have read the report I am unable to make any statement as to publication.

Mr. Edwards: Will the right hon. Gentleman let us know when the report will be published?

Sir T. Inskip: I have said that, until I have read the report, I can make no statement.

Mr. James Griffiths: Do the Government propose to act upon the committee's recommendations without first consulting the House of Commons as to the desirability of those recommendations?

Sir T. Inskip: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to read the report, I may be able to answer him.

Oral Answers to Questions — ECONOMIC MISSION (M. VAN ZEELAND'S REPORT).

Mr. White: asked the Prime Minister whether he will arrange for the report of M. Van Zeeland on his mission to be made available to Members when it is received?

The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell).

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

ROADS (DEVELOPMENT AND IMPROVEMENT).

Sir N. Grattan-Doyle: asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the proposals made to him by the Automobile Association for the continuous development of 18 main highways in order of importance as traffic arteries; and whether he is prepared to accept these proposals as the starting point of a national programme of trunk road development and improvement?

The Minister of transport (Mr. Burgin): The Automobile Association has made no proposals to me, but I have seen references in the Press to the proposals to which my hon. Friend refers. As at present advised, I propose, as funds and circumstances permit, to devote first attention to those points where the survey now being carried out by my Department discloses the greatest need for improvements.

Lieut.-Commander Tufnell: asked the Minister of Transport whether he has given consideration to the possibility of easing the congestion on certain roads by the construction of additional roads along side the railways where there is land available; and whether he will undertake to review this matter in detail during the coming year?

Mr. Burgin: In examining the possible siting of new roads, the suggestion of my hon. and gallant Friend is one of the many considerations which must always be borne in mind by my advisers.

Sir Joseph Nail: Is my right hon. Friend now considering the scheme submitted by the Lancashire County Council and can he say when his decision will be communicated?

Mr. Burgin: I think that is a very different matter, and I am not aware that it has anything to do with railways along side roads.

Lieut.-Commander Tufnell: Is my right hon. Friend prepared to consider that such a scheme will use up less agricultural land and be less prejudicial to the beauty of the country?

Mr. Burgin: There is a good deal of difficulty about deriving access to a road-way across a railway running parallel.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: Is it not a fact that roads immediately contiguous to railway property are in fact railway property and that it is more or less impossible to pay the rates asked for them?

ROAD ACCIDENTS.

Mr. Davidson: asked the Minister of Transport the total number of deaths as a result of road accidents in the Maryhill division of Glasgow for the years ended September, 1935 and 1937, respectively?

Mr. Burgin: Road accidents in the Maryhill police division of Glasgow during the years ended 30th September, 1935 and 1937, resulted in the deaths of four and 10 persons respectively.

Mr. Davidson: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, not wishing to criticise him, whether he will give serious consideration to this increase of deaths in one particular division, in order to try and reduce the number of deaths in that area?

Mr. Burgin: Yes, of course, but I am glad to say that the number of persons killed in 1937 is less than in 1936 and that the number of persons injured in this district is also substantially less.

Mr. Kirby: asked the Minister of Transport the number of street accidents in which school children were involved in the city of Liverpool between the hours of 8 to 9 a.m., noon to 1.30 p.m., and

3.45 to 5 p.m., during the years 1935 and 1936 respectively?

Mr. Burgin: During the year 1935, in the city of Liverpool, 276 children under the age of 16 years were involved in street accidents which occurred about the hours of going to or returning from school. Comparable figures for the whole of 1936 are not available, but 128 children were involved during the period from 1st January to 31st July, 1936.

Mr. Kirby: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether those figures are supplied to him regularly by the Liverpool Corporation or Watch Committee?

Mr. Craven-Ellis: How many of those accidents resulted fatally?

Mr. Burgin: Perhaps my hon. Friend will put that question down, as it is not quite the question that I was asked. I am indebted, of course, to the chief constable of the city of Liverpool for the information that I have given.

Mr. Kirby: The point that I wanted to get at was whether the chief constable of Liverpool regularly forwarded that information or whether the right hon. Gentleman got it specially for this occasion.

Mr. Burgin: The information as to the total number of accidents comes automatically. The total number of persons involved in accidents in the city of Liverpool is something of the order of 4,500 a year, but what is not regularly done is the breaking down of that total among different persons, and I am not aware that that as a regular practice is worth the trouble and expense, unless I call for it.

Mr. Woods: asked the Minister of Transport the major causes of road accidents and the percentage of the accidents during 1936 attributable to each of the major causes?

Mr. Burgin: As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the information:

Particulars of the causes of road accidents during the whole of the year 1936 are not available but an analysis of 100,000 road accidents involving personal injury which occurred in the six


months of April to September, 1936, shows that the major causes attributed were as follow:


—
Number of Accidents.
Percentage of total.


Drivers or Riders of Vehicles (including Pedal Cyclists):




Emerging or turning from one road into another without due care.
9,655
9·6


Inattentive or attention diverted.
6,786
6·8


Misjudging clearance
4,993
5·0


Skidding
4,830
4·8


proceeding at excessive speed having regard to conditions.
4,430
4·4


Swerving
4,209
4·2


Overtaking improperly
3,729
3·7


Failing to keep to near side or proper traffic lane.
3,234
3·2


Losing control
3,179
3·2


Pedestrians:




Heedless of traffic
11,261
11·3


Walking or running out from in front of or behind vehicle which masked movement.
3,683
3·7


Children under 7 years of age unaccompanied or inadequately supervised.
7,967
8·0


Causes ascribed other than to persons:




(e.g. road or weather conditions, defects in vehicles, etc.).
8,662
8·7



76,618
76·6

ROAD SIGNS.

Mr. Woods: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will consider the advisability of adopting the international code of road signing?

Mr. Burgin: Regulations under the Road Traffic Acts provide for the use on roads in this country of a number of the international signs, but in my view it is inadvisable to commit this country to the adoption of all the signs used abroad.

Mr. Woods: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the inadequacy and lack of uniformity in road signing on secondary roads and routes through towns; and whether he is taking any steps to achieve any improvement?

Mr. Burgin: A new system of directional signposting on classified roads was recommended by the Departmental Committee on Traffic Signs (1933), and substantial progress has been and is being

made by highway authorities in its adoption. I have received no serious complaint of the inadequacy of signposting on unclassified roads, but if the hon. Member has any particular district in mind, I shall be glad to make inquiries.

Sir Francis Fremantle: Will my right hon. Friend include in his inquiries the fact that a very large number of streets about London and so on have no labels on the corners and that it is impossible to know where you are going to?

Mr. Woods: Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with the question of the towns, and is he not of opinion that a good deal of unnecessary congestion exists in large towns and that a great deal of that is due to motorists losing their way because of the inadequacy of the signing through towns?

ROAD OBSTRUCTIONS, KING'S CROSS.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the obstructions in the road in connection with the re-building of the underground station at King's Cross and that these conditions are likely to continue for a year or more unless some alterations are made; and what action he intends taking about the matter?

Mr. Burgin: I understand from the Commissioner of Police that by arrangement with the highway authority and the London Passenger Transport Board everything possible is being done to expedite this work and to reduce the inevitable inconvenience to the public.

Mr. Thorne: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to send along one of his representatives about 8.30 to morrow (Thursday) morning to see whether it is not possible to arrange for something better to be done at this place?

Mr. Burgin: The board has statutory powers to rebuild this station, and the scheme is one covered by a Government guarantee. The highway board are the St. Pancras Borough Council. At present there are two tram tracks and one line of traffic or, when the trams are not running, three lines of traffic. I fear that whenever you have a major traffic improvement, there must be temporary inconvenience, but I will certainly have the matter to which the hon. Member has called attention inquired into.

LONDON DOCKS.

Mr. Edwards: asked the Minister of Transport whether, for economic and strategic reasons, he will discourage the further extension of London docks by the Port of London Authority, and divert as much traffic as possible to northern ports?

Mr. Burgin: Parliament has given me no power to control the policy of the Port of London Authority in regard to the extension of the London docks, nor can I interfere with the discretion of traders as to the ports through which they decide to send their traffic.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: Will the committee which is considering the geographical distribution of the industrial population bear in mind the position of our ports?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

FRUIT JUICES (IMPORTS).

Mr. De la Bère: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to classify and designate the imported fruit juices coming into this country, in order to maintain the highest possible standard of purity and to prevent unfair competition against the home-producer?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Euan Wallace): I am not clear what sort of classification my hon. Friend has in mind, but I shall be glad to consider any suggestions that he may care to make.

Mr. De la Bère: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware of the standard of purity which prevails in the Vale of Evesham?

Captain Wallace: The standard of purity which prevails in the Vale of Evesham and anywhere else is a matter for the Minister of Health.

PHOSGENE (EXPORT).

Mr. McEntee: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that in a Japanese news service distributed to Members of Parliament it is alleged that 12 tons of phosgene gas have been shipped from England to China; and whether he will state the number of licences granted for the export of this product from this country, the quantities concerned, and the destination?

Mr. R. S. Hudson (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): No phosgene has

been exported from the United Kingdom since the commencement of this year, with the exception of three tons consigned to a dye-works in Holland,

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this news service is issued from an address in Paris, and will he consult with the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs with a view to seeing whether any action is possible with the French Government and this dissemination stopped?

Mr. Hudson: I have made it clear in my answer that the allegation in the document in question is totally without any foundation.

Colonel Sandeman Allen: Is not the suggestion in the question that "gas" has been shipped to England?

Oral Answers to Questions — LAND ACQUISITION (LIVERPOOL).

Mr. Kirby: asked the Minister of Health whether the Liverpool City Council has recently bought land in connection with the proposed new satellite town at Speke; if so, whether any part of the Hale estate is involved; what area is being acquired and at what price; and what is the value at which this land has been assessed for local taxation?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Bernays): I understand that the city council have agreed to purchase an area of 351 acres, part of the Hale estate, at a price of £65 per acre: the land is at present agricultural and, therefore, derated.

Mr. Kirby: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether the Liverpool City Council has acquired land in Oak Lane and Dwerry-house Lane for elementary school purposes and the extension of Abbotsford Road council school; if so, what is the area, the price and the previous rateable value of this land; and what, if any, expense the council is incurring upon road making in addition to the cost of the land?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Kenneth Lind-say): The board have approved the acquisition by the Liverpool local education authority for elementary school purposes of a site of 10.4 acres in Dwerryhouse Lane at a cost of £9,500, including £250


for legal charges. The board have no information as to the previous rateable value of this land. They have been informed that the authority are not likely to incur any road making charges in connection with this site; but it is under stood that part of the land will later be required for road widening and development. The board have not received any proposal to acquire land in connection with the approved extension of Abbots-ford Road council school.

Colonel Wedgwood: If the hon. Gentleman cannot supply the previous rateable value of the land, can he supply the value as assessed for Schedule A of the Income Tax?

Mr. Lindsay: Not without notice.

Colonel Wedgwood: Will the hon. Gentleman try to obtain that information?

Mr. Lindsay: Certainly.

Oral Answers to Questions — MENTAL HOSPITALS (NURSING STAFF).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the serious shortage of female nurses in public mental hospitals; what is the total numerical extent of this shortage; and what action is he taking in the matter?

Mr. Bernays: Yes, Sir; on a total establishment of 12,283 female nurses the shortage is 758 or 6.2 per cent. The matter will come within the purview of the Committee of Inquiry into the Nursing Service which was announced on 4th November.

Mr. Sorensen: Will consideration be given to the question of employing married women nurses?

Mr. Bernays: As far as I am aware, that question will come under review.

Oral Answers to Questions — OLD AGE PENSIONERS (PUBLIC ASSISTANCE).

Mr. Sexton: asked the Minister of Health (i) the total sum paid to old age pensioners under the Act of 1924 during the years 1934, 1935 and 1936, respectively, in the County of Durham; and what was the total sum paid by the Durham County Public Assistance Committee

during the same periods to supplement pensions under the same Act;
(2) what was the total sum paid to widows and dependants under the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Acts during the years 1934, 1935 and 1936, respectively, in the County of Durham; and what was the total sum paid by the Durham County Public Assistance Committee during the same periods to supplement pensions under the same Act;
(3) what was the total sum paid in National Health Insurance benefit during the years 1934, 1935 and 1936, respectively, in the County of Durham; and what was the total sum paid by the Durham County Public Assistance Committee during the same periods to supplement such benefits?

Mr. Bernays: I regret that the information desired by the hon. Member is not available.

Oral Answers to Questions — LAND DRAINAGE (SHEERNESS).

Mr. Maitland: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware of the continued dissatisfaction of the residents of Sheerness and district in what is regarded as the unfair imposition of the drainage rate, and that last Thursday the Sheerness Urban District Council was summoned for the non-payment of the current rate; and whether he will take any steps to ease the burden caused by the incidence of the drainage rate to Sheerness and district?

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. W. S. Morrison): A series of differential rating orders have been made by the drainage board the last of which has the effect of relieving the Sheerness and Queensborough sub-district of the drainage district to the extent of twenty-five thirty-sixths of the rate levied in the most heavily rated part of the drainage district. As my hon. Friend is aware, I have no power to initiate action designed to give further relief to the Sheerness and Queensborough area.

Mr. Maitland: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply, I desire to give notice that I will raise this subject on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department


whether one of the special arrangements relative to mental hospital patients and air-raid precautions includes the evacuation of such patients to other parts of the country; and whether he will indicate specific plans already made for this purpose?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): Arrangements for the protection of mental hospital patients and staffs will have to be considered in the light of local conditions. If the hospitals are located in areas considered especially vulnerable, plans for evacuation may have to be prepared. In other cases the necessary air-raid precautions will be taken.

Mr. Sorensen: Is it not a fact that in some cases plans have been prepared for the evacuation of patients to other parts of the country?

Mr. Lloyd: Satisfactory air-raid precaution schemes have been prepared in some mental hospitals, but I cannot answer about any specific cases.

Mr. De la Bère: What did the B.B.C. say on 7th May?

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS.

DISTRIBUTIVE TRADES.

Mr. Rhys Davies: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to the conditions of employment in the Distributive Trades, and move a Resolution.

COST OF LIVING.

Mr. Lathan: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to the Cost of Living, and move a Resolution.

BRITISH NEWS ABROAD.

Mr. Bull: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to the Supply of British News Abroad, and move a Resolution.

WATER SUPPLY.

Mr. Levy: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to the Country's Water Supply, and move a Resolution.

ASSURANCE COMPANIES (AMENDMENT).

Mr. Jagger: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the granting of rebates of premiums to any persons in connection with the issue of contracts of insurance, to amend the law relating to life assurance companies, and for other purposes connected therewith.
This Bill is designed to bring about a small reform in the business of insurance in this country. Legislation on the lines proposed has already been passed in the Dominion of Canada and is working satisfactorily. This is a small Measure which does not propose to make any revolutionary change in the position of assurance and insurance. It is designed, first, to protect the more reputable insurance companies against a form of unfair competition in which some of the less reputable companies indulge; second, to put an end to what has become a measure of unfair competition between various classes of traders because of their ability to get their assurances effected on more advantageous terms in some cases than in others; and, third, and more important, to protect the interests of the many thousands of assurance agents and brokers whose legitimate and honourable calling is disadvantageously affected by the kind of thing which this Bill is designed to put an end to. It consists of only three operative Clauses, and it applies to all those assurance companies which are covered by the Act of 1909. The first Clause makes it an offence for a company to make any kind of rebate or sharing arrangement of the customary agent's or broker's commission between the company and the insured. The second Clause makes it an offence for an officer or solicitor or employé of the company to make such offers to the insured. The third Clause makes it an offence for the insured knowingly to accept these illicit commissions.
It may be news to many hon. Members that abuses such as this Bill is designed to prevent exist to any considerable extent, but I am certain there are hon. Members who have actually been approached at one time or another by officials of assurance companies and offered the inducement of a nominal agency which would entitle them to the


agent's or broker's commission on condition that they transferred their insurance business to those particular companies. The evil is a rapidly growing one and, in my view, if not checked, may ultimately lead to certain of the assurance companies attaching much more importance to getting transfers of business from other companies than they attach to the business of seeing that their companies remain stable and sound financially. At a recent annual conference of the organisation which embraces assurance agents and brokers it was stated that in one inspector's area in one particular assurance company, out of a list of 200 agents only 10 had taken any other business to the company than their own business. A more recent development is that assurance companies persuade the heads of large firms and corporations to bring systems of collective insurance before their employés, and it is exceedingly difficult for those employés, approached by the employer to take out insurance policies, to decline to do so, and there are hundreds of clerks and others paying insurance premiums which they can ill afford to pay and would never have undertaken had it not been for that kind of pressure. Briefly, this Bill is designed to remedy a relatively new but a rapidly growing evil in the insurance world, and I commend it to the House.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jagger, Mr. Burke, Mr. Leslie, Sir Ernest Graham-Little, and Major Procter.

ASSURANCE COMPANIES (AMENDMENT) BILL.

"to prohibit the granting of rebates of premiums to any persons in connection with the issue of contracts of insurance, to amend the law relating to life assurance companies, and for other purposes connected therewith," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 67.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

National Health Insurance (Juvenile Contributors and Young Persons) Bill, without Amendment.

LOCATION OF INDUSTRY.

3.55 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: I beg to move,
That, in view of the opinion expressed by this House more than 12 months ago as to the necessity for action to prevent further industrial concentration around London and in the South, this House regrets that His Majesty's Government, instead of recognising the gravity and urgency of the problem from the point of view of defence and the plight of the distressed areas, have been content, whilst the evil grows, to institute a lengthy inquiry into facts already known and to be responsible for the submission of evidence calculated to discourage the early adoption of an effective policy for planning the location of industry in accordance with the national interest.
In moving this Motion I must say that I feel glad that I have a subject which anchors me to the earth, because I found the air a little bumpy during my short flight on Monday night. There seemed to be a certain amount of thunder and lightning rumbling over Mount Olympus that night, but, fortunately, I was not struck, either physically or mentally. I believe the subject of this Motion is one which arouses considerable interest in many parts of the House, and as I wish as many Members as possible to share in my good fortune in the Ballot the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Jenkins), whom I am fortunate to have as my Seconder, and myself, have agreed to ration ourselves somewhat in respect of the time we occupy. I hope that our abstinence will be rewarded, because when a similar Motion was proposed from these benches some time ago the opener took 24 minutes, the Seconder took 14 minutes, and then the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) took 35 minutes in moving an Amendment to the Motion.
I shall not attempt to cover all the matters raised in the Motion, but propose to deal principally with that part of it which refers to London. I feel very fortunate in enjoying, to some extent, the support of the Prime Minister in this matter, because, curiously enough, he has a certain fondness for garden cities, which has led him to extend his interest to this question of the location of industry. Speaking in February, 1927, the Prime Minister said, referring to Letchworth and Welwyn Garden Cities:
If we could multiply them we should be providing an ideal solution to that most difficult problem of overcrowded industrial

towns. To take the factories to the people in the country instead of keeping people round the factories in the towns, that is something worth working for.
Again, he said in Birmingham in June, 1927:
I hope the conference will not part without giving serious consideration to the possibility of founding new cities built on a definite plan, making use of the experience and knowledge we have of the mistakes that have been committed in the past.
If the House will bear with me, I should like to give a further quotation from a speech by the Prime Minister at the first meeting of the Greater London Joint Town Planning Committee, in which he said:
It is quite possible that the only way of multiplying garden cities would be by the appointment of some special commission whose business it would be to take the initiative.
I feel that it is very greatly to the credit of the Prime Minister that one of his first acts upon succeeding to his office was the appointment of a Royal Commission on the Location of Industry, thus fulfilling the suggestion that he made 10 years ago. It enhances his reputation as a man of his word, and we now hope that he will live up to all those statements I have quoted, and will use his influence to expedite the work of the Royal Commission which is now sitting; and, in addition to showing himself a man of his word, show himself to be, also, a man of action concerned with getting quick results.
This control of the location of industry is linked up with many other very great issues—unemployment, the distressed areas, the vitality and health of the workers, the defence of London, the preservation of the natural beauties of the countryside. But as things are, there is almost a complete lack of any national guidance in these matters and a complete lack of any national co-ordination. Yet if something is not done from the national point of view the country is steadily going to get into a state of chaos. There are few signs as yet that the Government have grasped all the implications of this question. What is happening is that the country is in the throes of a far greater industrial revolution than that which took place 120 years ago. At that time the industries which sprang up during the first days of the era of steam, and the: location of the cities in which those industries were placed, were determined mainly by such factors as the presence of coal


the presence of water, of iron and of timber, nearness to ports, and in the case of Lancashire the climate. It was in that way that we got those blots on the British landscape which we call towns. Those towns are a grim indictment of the stupidity and the ignorance and the lack of foresight of our forbears, who boasted that they were making this country into the workshop of the world, while they were really hard at work making a large part of it into eyesores.
Now we have to ask ourselves, if we are criticising these mistakes, whether we ourselves have advanced very far? The salient feature of to-day is that the cheapening of electric power which has given industry a new mobility. One hundred and twenty years ago the areas which could be devastated by industrial development were limited, for the reasons I have given. To-day, thanks to the cheapness of electric power, there are no areas of England which are exempt from similar devastation. Chaos is growing, our towns are a muddle, our large cities are a crime against their inhabitants, and the countryside is being spoilt by scattered and ugly buildings. Community life, which is so essential in a democracy, is being strangled in the congestion of cities and attenuated to extinction in ribbon development. Few people realise the destruction of human happiness which is being brought about in these ways. There is no thought as to the size and character of the future population for which we ought to be planning. The movements of population are left entirely to chance.
We want national guidance of new industries on the basis of towns of a reasonable size. The only conceivable reason for making towns bigger is the refusal to think. It really is sheer laziness. Initiative is needed to start new towns of a reasonable size, and it is far easier just to drift aimlessly on to the rim of existing towns, although new towns would have everything in their favour—non-inflated land values, factories cheaper to build and maintain, and better to work in, workers able to get easily to their work instead of spending so much time and money on doing it, as at present. As things are, we are building and extending our towns in a manner which we know to be wrong, and destructive of the well-being of the present and future generations. Most

people seem to think this is inevitable. It is neither inevitable nor right.
The present growth of our towns is really a disaster of the first magnitude, with a bearing upon every single social problem, from birth rate to agricultural depression. If decentralisation is the remedy, well, decentralisation may be difficult, but we have in this country quite capable administrators who could take on the job; and as a matter of fact the technical difficulties of decentralisation are far less than the technical difficulties involved in the present tendency towards centralisation. Centralisation, in London for instance, involves the most complicated engineering problems, it involves the double tracking of the tube railways, a most difficult and complicated engineering feat; it means fitting tenements on to very awkward and very expensive sites. But the difficulty in the way of decentralisation is that there is no definite responsibility laid upon, or power vested in, any central body. That difficulty could be removed if the Government were resolved a solution must be found. Are we to allow a repetition of the mistakes we have seen going on in London during the last 16 years? If we are going to do so, can we visualise without horror the London of 1940–50?
All these things I have mentioned about London are very largely true of many provincial towns and cities as well. I am dealing with London in particular, and in doing so I must tread rather gently, on account of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison). I join with him, though, in loving London, and I yield to no one in my admiration of the work which he is doing for London at the present moment. But London is altering in a most formidable way. I came here from the country, but I am not sure that things are improving in London for the man who does that. I think that the Dick Whittington of the depressed areas, who responds to the lure of London in 1937, had better "turn again" back to where he came from. I understand that his chances of becoming Lord Mayor are now about one in 450,000,000. On the other hand his chance of dying in a work house is one in three; his chance of ending by committing suicide is one in 70. Then there is his chance of becoming a lunatic. That chance is one in 84. Or he may go to prison; he will find that


one in 70 of his fellow-citizens has been His Majesty's guest at some time or other. But his chances of finding work are only one in 10. So I think he had better go back home again.
London's growth is causing anxiety. I remember a Motion brought forward in this House which said that the power of the Crown had grown, was growing and ought to be diminished. I think that now we might bring forward a Motion to say that London is too big, is growing bigger, and ought to be diminished. We ought to stop industries stampeding into London, and divert them back to the areas which that stampede is devastating. Greater London is now a crazy size, 700 square miles. Saturn's Ring is steadily becoming much bigger than Saturn itself. It is very doubtful if in war this enormous population could be either protected or fed. The figures given by Sir Malcolm Stewart show that during 1935 213 new factories were established in Greater London, and during that period only two new factories and six extensions were recorded in the whole of the Special Areas. There were no new factories or extensions at all in the Welsh Special Areas.
The result of this is that London now is in an advanced stage of strangulation. Look at traffic, straphanging in tube railways, pedestrians afraid to cross the streets, motorists unable to find parking room for a car, the City of London declining to provide more car parks for fear of bringing more cars into the City, the London Transport Board thinking that private cars must go to make room for more omnibuses. The Government do not piece together all these various problems. They expend vast ingenuity in trying to deal with them as isolated problems, and the more they try to solve them the more inconvenient life in London gets. To try to increase the speed and capacity of the tubes you extend them further out into the suburbs, and the result is that the people who travel in them increase faster than the capacity of the tubes to handle them. You have all this system of traffic lights and one way regulations. The only result of that is that you pass a very few more vehicles through and you add enormously to vehicle mileage. Architects fit a decreasing allowance of living space into those loftier and loftier block of flats which are really the enemy of everything that we know as family life, and which do not

provide a good environment for children brought up in them.
Seen separately, all these matters make a confusion which seems hopeless, but they are really all part of the same problem. This growth of London is taking away the earning power of other parts of the country, taking away the earning power especially from those areas which used to be the centre of gravity of our industrial life, those areas where our industrial pre-eminence was built up. Lancashire has had 80,000 of its industrial population drained away—80,000 of the economic life-blood of Lancashire drained away. You have highly skilled industrial communities standing idle in other parts of the country while this congestion of industry in London goes on. London now is dominating the rest of the country to the disadvantage of the rest of the country, and it is quite time that the Government paid some attention to this case of the rest of England versus London.
A very serious aspect of this problem of the congestion of London is the loss of time, the discomfort, the expense and the fatigue involved for those workers whose task calls for a journey of anything from 30 to 40 minutes to their work, and who almost continually have to stand the whole of the way, morning and evening. It is very largely due to the practice of most places of business of starting and stopping their day's work at the same time. That matter is under inquiry at the present moment, in relation to what is known as staggering. I realise that very difficult problems are involved especially the danger of creating two peak periods, but I am convinced that along the line of staggering lies the solution of the journey of the worker to his place of employment.
The journey of the worker has two repercussions, first of which is ill-health. A large firm has made an inquiry and has correlated the incidence of absenteeism and ill-health with the length of the journey of each employé. It has found that the employés who live longer distances from work take 80 per cent. more time off for illness. Another large firm reports that hardly a day passes without some employé having to be treated for minor injuries, sustained during the journey to work. Then there is the monetary aspect of the journey.
The man who lives 30 minutes' or 40 minutes' journey from his work has to spend money which if spent on food would buy him a better mid-day meal, and there would be a corresponding improvement in his health. As it is trade unions fight for better wages and the increase is swallowed up largely by travelling expenses.
My concluding points relate to the defence of London as it is affected by the concentration of industry and population here. During the last 10 years, the possibility of another war has steadily grown, but, during that same 10 years, successive Governments have stood by and watched a greater and greater concentration of industry and population in that part of the country where, for reasons of war, concentration is least desirable. Blucher is reported to have said, when he came here after the Battle of Waterloo, and saw London: "What a city to loot." I think that any German airman who happened to visit London at the present moment might very well go away saying: "What a city to bomb." Here we have this completely suicidal concentration of industry, finance, docks, Government, population, transport and power stations, the whole mechanism of Empire, concentrated, all the eggs in one basket, waiting for the enemy bomber. Smash one bit, and you put the whole machine out of gear. What will happen under intense and prolonged air attack? What will you do about shipping and how will you feed the population if the docks are knocked out? What will you do about your factories if the stations which supply them with power are destroyed? Are you certain you will be able to transport food and vital raw materials? One question after another might be put to illustrate the suicidal nature of the concentration which has been going on in London just at the time when, unfortunately for us but fortunately for our enemies, the conquest of the air has been achieved and has made London the finest bombing target in the world. There are some foreign air forces which must be rubbing their hands at the spectacle.
We are engaged in centralising people and industry about that target to an extent which is unprecedented in the case of any other city in the world. The late Prime Minister said that the bomber would always get through; and to make

life one long sweet song for the bomber, every day and in every way, we make his target bigger and bigger. Really, if we did not know our Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence we might believe that he was in the toils of some beautiful foreign spy who had rendered him subservient to alien influence. If he were so, he could not be doing more to help the enemy than he is doing with respect to the London target. But it is not a tale of love and folly; it is just straight folly. It is the Minister's mind and not his morals which are at fault.
Perhaps, out of this air menace, a plan for London may yet spring up and, against their will, the Government may find themselves strengthening their control over industry. The change of plan about the White Waltham factory conceded the essential point that the siting of industry is a matter of national interest. The fact is that we are up against the profit motive. Conservative Governments just hate to stand up against that motive, although I believe there are many enlightened younger Members on the other side of the House who see—[Interruption]—well, let me say that there are several hon. Members who see the position and deplore it. Unfortunately, it is part of the system which they are pledged to support. It is extraordinary that although people will give up their lives out of patriotism you cannot get them to give up their profits for patriotism. If we were at war with Japan, many manufacturers and sons of manufacturers would go, patriotically and quickly, but if an economic boycott of Japan were suggested, they would say: "No, that would interfere with profits, and we cannot hear anything about that." But light is dawning even in Conservative quarters.
A Commission is sitting at the present moment to inquire into the location of industry, but there is so much information already available in the pigeon holes of town and country planning authorities, the Post Office, the War Office, the Board of Trade, the Ministry of Health and the Home Office that I believe the work of the Commission is largely unnecessary and will only delay the remedy of the evils to which I am calling attention. The chairman is a man of great experience, but I understand that the proceedings are cumbrous and dilatory. I hope the chairman's great personal interest in the work of the Commission


will not interfere with his giving ample opportunity to all members of the Commission to cross-examine witnesses and bring out their own points of view. Can not the proceedings of the Commission be simplified and accelerated? Cannot the Commission concentrate first of all on the problem of national Defence, and bring out an interim report on which the Government could take action, afterwards getting on with other important but less urgent aspects of the problem? What has been done during the last 12 years to prevent further industrial concentration? We are very much behind other nations in our handling of this matter. German plans for industry are marvellously thorough and complete. With the Germans, national defence is the sole criterion in the location of industry. Industry has been moved east, away from the French frontier. Key factories are isolated, and each of them has its own highly efficient system of defence against air attack. I would ask hon. Members to imagine the fate of any German industrialist who told General Goering that he must go where he could make most profit and not where the General wanted him to go. National defence is the first consideration in Germany, and should be the first consideration here also where location of industry is concerned.
I see there is an Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mabane). It is a typical National Liberal Amendment. [Interruption.] I take it that the hon. Member still calls himself a Liberal, even though he is a little piebald. I call it a typical National Liberal Amendment because it says in effect: "Things are bad, very bad, but, thinking all things over, it is probably better to leave them bad, because who knows what would happen if you tried to alter them? In any case, if you do, you might interfere with profits." The only thing left out of it which would have made it a 100 per cent. Liberal Amendment is any reference to proportional representation, without which no Liberal Amendment is complete, as they now regard it as a cure for everything.

Mr. Dingle Foot: Have I not heard the hon. and gallant Member advocating proportional representation from a large number of platforms in the Tavistock Division?

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: We all have such relics of our early and unenlightened days like millstones round our necks. I can well understand any National Liberal gazing enviously at the Government Front Bench and feeling very strong for proportional representation. The Amendment only encourages delay, and delay is dangerous. Recent Debates have shown clearly that the defence of our great cities from air attack is largely make-belief and sham. Unless the Government take power to determine the location of industry in accordance with national safety they will be betraying the country. That is the essence of the Motion which I move.

4.28 p.m.

Mr. A. Jenkins: I beg to second the Motion.
I have great pleasure in doing so, because I think it is of considerable importance to the country. It is clear that something similar to the Motion should have been put in operation a considerable time ago, in which case we should not be confronted with our present problems. My hon. and gallant Friend talked a good deal about the City of London, and I believe he described it as well-nigh unmanageable even in peace time. I am not sure, and neither is anybody else, what London will be like if we ever are unfortunate enough to suffer air attack. I have heard it said, and believe it to be true, that the people of the country depend upon the London Docks for at least one-quarter of their food supply. That dependence is not diminishing; the tendency is for it to increase. More and more food is coming to the London Docks and no attempt is made to divert the trade to other and less vulnerable parts of the country. Greater London has approximately one-fifth of the population of the country and one-fourth of the rateable value, a fact which is of enormous importance in the local government of the country. It is becoming an extremely difficult problem. My hon. and gallant Friend referred to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison), who controls only a part of London now, while the part that he controls is losing some of its population. Many people are going outside the administrative County of London, leaving the problem on the inside of London more difficult. What characterises London in that respect


characterises every great city to some extent. Is it not a fact that the problems of central London are such that the finances, even of London, are not now capable of modernising the city? There has been a great deal of talk about a Charing Cross Bridge. I have heard it said that that bridge when built, with all the improvements necessary to enable the great traffic to pass over it reasonably well, will cost approximately £40,000,000. That is a most formidable proposition, even for London. This state of affairs is to be seen in other cities as well as in London. The bigger a city gets, the more costly it becomes to modernise its centre. One can see that in Birmingham and in other great cities in this country.
Steps ought to have been taken long since to get this matter dealt with. The Government, apparently, take no heed of any suggestions that are ever made to them with regard to this problem. It is some considerable time since we had a deputation to the late Prime Minister and a number of Cabinet Ministers asking them to take steps with regard to it. We were put off; anyhow, no action at all was taken. Sir Malcolm Stewart, in one of his early reports, after having gone into the matter fully and carefully, said, "Put London out of bounds as far as new industries are concerned." But nothing has been done and now may I quote from paragraph 40 of the report, just issued, of the Commissioner for the Special Areas? Sir George Gillett said:
Sir Malcolm Stewart constantly drew attention in his published reports to the all important question of the location of industry and the need for considering the social as well as the economic effects of the transference of industries from one part of the country to another. This is a question which is very near the roots of the problem of the Special Areas. The Government cannot, in my view, especially since the introduction of tariffs and quotas, evade the responsibility of the location of industry.
What is happening in South Wales? we saw that the Dowlais Steel Company transferred their works from Dowlais to Cardiff. Cardiff was not in need of those works, but they were transferred. And let me say this, because I think it needs publicity: Before the decision was made to move those works. Guest, Keen and Company succeeded in selling a large number of their old cottages, from 100 to 150 years old, to their workpeople. After having got rid of those cottages, after

having got the workpeople to purchase them and to enter into liabilities in respect of them, they transferred their works to Cardiff. They did that because they thought, and I suppose it is true, that they could make a slight profit by doing so. And what have they left behind? They have left behind Dowlais and Merthyr. At the present time the Commissioner for the Special Areas is endeavouring to establish new industries there, but as a matter of fact he is finding great difficulties in doing so. He talks about the derelict sites. The works that once existed in those areas have now been transferred elsewhere, leaving behind conditions of widespread ruin. I should like to quote what the Commissioner for the Special Areas, in paragraph 12 of the report from which I have already quoted, says with regard to the need for dealing with these areas:
I well remember the depressing effect that great slag heaps and the ruins of dismal factories had on me on my first visit, and even now some measure of familiarity has not re moved that feeling. It is no easy task to persuade industries to come to some of these places, and it makes me ask myself the question whether it is right that whole districts should be ruined without industry being held liable for some of the ruin they have created. I am now asked to clear up, on behalf of the Government, these unsightly ruins of concerns that in former days, no doubt, paid their shareholders handsome dividends.
He goes on to say that he is only able to deal with two or three of these areas. Dowlais is one of them. There we have to spend substantial sums of public money in order to clear up the ruin that these people have left behind. As regards Merthyr, the Merthyr people had no say as to whether or not a great industry should be removed. Which is the greater—the capital involved in the industry concerned, or the capital involved in the houses, the roads, the schools, the chapels and so on? I have done my best to make as careful an analysis as I am capable of making in order to try to ascertain what is the capital of the industries and what is the capital of the towns, and generally speaking you will find that what I like to describe as the socially owned capital amounts to approximately three times that which is in industries. Notwithstanding that, however, the owners of this social capital have no say at all as to whether a works shall be transferred from one place to another.
The Amendment on the Paper suggests that it is dangerous to interfere with the freedom—the old laissez-faire policy—of industry. A few days ago we had another brand of Liberalism from the hon. Member for Berwick-on-Tweed (Sir H. Seely), who said he knew perfectly well that nationalisation of the mining industry would come, but he wanted to delay it as long as he possibly could. That was the burden of what he said. To-day we are told again that it is dangerous to interfere with this freedom of industry, but it is also extremely dangerous to allow industry to go on in this manner. My hon. and gallant Friend who moved the Motion said that 80,000 people had come away from Lancashire as a consequence of industrial depression. Three hundred thousand people have come away from South Wales as a consequence of there being no authority to locate industries in those areas. That has been the direct result. There is plenty of evidence of it in the Commissioners' reports. Now we have a Royal Commission going into the whole matter. We know what happens with Royal Commissions. I was a member of one some years ago. We made a report, but no action has been taken. Is that to happen in connection with this Royal Commission also? I contend that we have had sufficient experience in the post-War period to show quite definitely the need for determining where these industries should be located.
I would refer to another case, not in Wales. Not very long ago, Messrs. Stewarts and Lloyds left the Clyde and came down to Corby. They have established their works at a very beautiful old-world village in Northamptonshire. Some time during last year I passed through that village, and I have never seen such destruction anywhere. The iron ore mines are ruining every inch of agricultural land from which the ore is taken. I should have imagined that they would have been welcome to remain on the Clyde, but what they considered, in talking about the removal, was what would be the cost to them. If I remember rightly what was stated in the re ports, it was estimated that they would be able to establish their works at Corby at a cost of £3,000,000. I believe the actual expenditure has been something over that amount, but they are there, and probably they are making a profit. But what is the effect on the Clyde? What

have they left behind? In any case there is no reason at all for establishing these great industries in our rural areas if they can be established in areas which have already had such industries. My reason for supporting my hon. and gallant Friend's Motion is that there is no proper co-ordinating authority. No individual company should have the right to remove its works from one area to another without being compelled to take into consideration all the factors involved—not only the factor of profit, not only dividends, but the social consequences, the effect upon our people's lives.
We know perfectly well that the removal of these works has left many of our people without employment—people of middle age, who are unemployed year after year. The people of Dowlais stand out as an example. Many of them have been unemployed for 10 years, and they have no hope of getting employment. The activities of local government authorities have had to be curtailed, the rates are the highest in the land, and there is little or no hope of their reduction. Are we going to allow that to be repeated? Are we going to allow London, if you like, to extend and absorb all these newer industries of the country? I imagine it will be said from the other side that there has not been a great transference of works from other areas to London. That may be true, but there has been a great development of new industries during the post-war period, and it is those industries with which we should be dealing. They should be located in areas where there has been a contraction of industry, and that seems to me to be an ample reason why the House should give support to this Motion. I do not want to take up too much time, because we agreed beforehand that every opportunity should be given to other hon. Members and that we would limit ourselves to 15 minutes. I think I have just taken my 15 minutes, and I will conclude by ex pressing the hope that the House will support the Motion and carry it if there is a Division upon it.

4.43 p.m.

Mr. Mabane: I beg to move, m fine 3, to leave out from the word "House," to the end of the Question, and to add in stead thereof:
approves the appointment of a Royal Commission to investigate the problem in all its aspects and, while conscious that the dangers


of interference with the normal course of industrial development necessitate full and exhaustive enquiry, trusts that the work of the Commission may be completed with all speed in order that His Majesty's Government may consider further action in the light of their Report.
I should like to congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher) on the skill with which he moved his Motion. He carefully avoided any close reference to the terms of the Motion, but spent a great deal of his time talking about town and country planning. With most of what he said in that connection the House would agree. He spent a good deal more time talking about the size of London, and with most of what he said in that connection, too, the House would agree, Indeed, if the House were voting on the speech of the hon. and gallant Member, it might be inclined to give him support but for the sting in its tail. The Seconder of the Motion also uttered many sentences with which the House is cordially in agreement. We fully recognise the danger of a too rapid transference of industries from one place to another; we recognise the devastation that that has caused in many parts of the country; but I would suggest that the examples of the past are having their influence both on opinion and on policy, as my hon. Friends and myself will endeavour to show before the Debate ends. I would ask the House to pay attention, not so much to the speeches of the Mover and Seconder of the Motion, but to the Motion itself. It seems to me that the core of the Motion is in the last line:
an effective policy for planning the location of industry in accordance with national interest.
That is what the hon. and gallant Member wants, and, by the ingenious device of relating the phrase to a Motion passed by the House a year ago, he seems to imply that the House has already given its approval to a policy of this character. The House has done nothing of the sort. A year ago it was considering a much more limited problem—the problem of the particular position of London and Southern England. I do not think I exaggerate when I say that on that occasion strategic reasons were uppermost in the minds of hon. Members.
With regard to the size of cities, many of us have held the view for much more

than a year that large cities are not the most desirable form of social development. Many of us have done our best to influence opinion in the direction of the conception of garden cities. Letchworth and Welwyn were established before the War: long before this problem arose. But we never stated nor should have assented to that wider proposition which the hon. and gallant Member wishes the House to approve, namely, that the national industrial development of any particular part of the country might be in itself bad. He desires the House to agree that it is the duty of Government rigidly to control the development of industry in accordance with its own view of what is the national interest. It is that proposition which I and my hon. Friends intend to resist.
After all, we cannot ignore our own industrial history. Looking back, we see that there has been remarkable geographical changes in the disposition of industry. In the Debate a year ago the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Crossley) reminded us of the time when the Eastern counties of England were among the most prosperous: a period which ended with the shift of the woollen industry to the West Riding. Some time ago, the Sussex Weald was the centre of iron production in this country. The introduction of smelting by coke, in place of smelting by charcoal, destroyed that industry. There are innumerable examples of the shifting geographical location of industry; innumerable examples to prove that industry is a dynamic and not a static organisation. If the hon. and gallant Member had lived in times past and had taken the view—which as I believe is a very short view—that he now takes, he would have said, "Here are the Eastern counties being devastated through the decline of the wool industry; let us prevent it," and he would have taken the same attitude in regard to the Sussex Weald.
There was a time when the hon. and gallant Member was a Liberal, when he set freedom very high as a social good. Since then he has been seduced by Socialism. I can understand it. He has had a long and honourable career in the Navy. He brings to politics the mind of a militarist. He is honest. He realises that Socialism means control, regimentation, the abandonment of liberty in the


traditional British sense. He would be happy as a dictator. I remain an apostle of liberty, and I believe that the great majority of the House and the country still believe in liberty. Did not the hon. and gallant Gentleman reveal himself in his true colours when he quoted with glee the example of Germany, and asked what would happen to any industrialist in Germany who disobeyed the dictate of Goering?

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: I asked what would be the fate of a German industrialist who told Goering that he intended to put profits before the national interest.

Mr. Mabane: Then the hon. and gallant Member has receded from his position.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: I say that a German industrialist would have to consider General Goering if he wished to put profits before the national interest.

Mr. Mabane: But would he have to consider General Goering in determining the location of his industry and the manner in which he conducted it. That is the point. Does the hon. and gallant Member recede from that?

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Yes, he probably would have to do.

Mr. Mabane: Quite, as he would in Italy, Russia, or in any other dictator State where economy is planned. As I say, I still remain a Liberal. I am sorry to see that the hon. and gallant Member has abandoned his Liberalism.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Is Liberalism to be identified with the view that the individual may put profits before national safety?

Mr. Mabane: Liberalism identifies itself, and I identify myself, with the view that the individual should be allowed to conduct his business in his own way. Yet neither I nor any Liberal would desire to pursue this argument to a dogmatic conclusion. I am not arguing for again the pure doctrine laissez faire, if for no other reason than that I believe doctrines and theories make bad practical politics. I do not argue that the greatest good of the greatest number is secured if every individual is allowed to pursue his self-interest in his own way. Society, continuing beyond the life time of any individual, has a proper place in the scheme

of things. I believe, therefore, that a proper accommodation between individual freedom and social justice provides the most desirable results. I believe further that the nature of that blend varies from time to time, according as the social sense in any society develops. Recent trends clearly indicate that individuals are more and more ready to consent to restriction of their rights if they are persuaded that a social good is thereby assured, but it is an essential element in such restriction that there should be consent and that it should not be imposed from above. If the hon. and gallant Member had his way, that general consent would not be forthcoming; and the effect of any such action as he proposes would be the serious disturbance of industry, with ultimate loss to the individual and to society in general. What does the hon. and gallant Member want? In brief, he wants to tell business men how to run their businesses.

Mr. James Griffiths: Where to put them.

Mr. Mabane: If you like, put it that way. If a man says "I want to venture my capital here," he will say "You must venture it there."

Mr. Griffiths: The Government have adopted the policy of giving national protection to industry. There are industries, we are told, that have survived because they have protection. Does the hon. Member believe that in the case of an industry which depends for its existence on the assistance of the Government the nation should have any control over its location?

Mr. Mabane: I say that the hon. and gallant Member who moved this Motion desires to say that business men shall not venture their capital here, but there. The proper, and quite obvious, reply to any such dictation is to ask what guarantees will be given if in consequence the venture ends in failure? If you give guarantees you must take some control of the industry, and control is the short step to socialised industry—[An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear"]—which I gather, from the applause opposite, is precisely what the hon. Member wants and what we do not want.
Yet, as I have said, it would be folly to proceed to the other extreme and argue that society has no interest in the manner in which industry develops or in the consequences which flow from large and


rapid shifts in its geographical distribution. It has a direct concern, and there is another, and I think, a better way to deal with this important problem, which is exemplified in the policy pursued by the National Government, a policy foreshadowed, I think, in the famous Liberal Yellow Book of 1929. That is the policy of persuasion, assistance and amelioration.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Sir Malcolm Stewart has stated that persuasion has been tried, and that it utterly failed.

Mr. Mabane: In the course of the Debate I and my hon. Friend behind me will be able to show that persuasion has by no means failed, and that assistance has by no means failed. There is, I know, the further strategic problem created by the vulnerability of London and South-East England to air attack. That problem requires special consideration, and I, for one, refuse to condition my life by the fear of war. I prefer to regard this, for the moment, as a purely economic problem, because I am so convinced that if a general European war breaks out, the catastrophe will be so complete and final, that, if I may so put it, by a paradox, it does not matter.
First comes amelioration. Society for many years has recognised a duty to the unemployed. It has recognised that if work is not available then means must be devised whereby the unemployed may be able to maintain themselves at the same time as they retain their freedom of action. That last condition is important. I believe that the unemployed in this country would always prefer less for maintenance and complete freedom of action, rather than what is called full maintenance with its corollary, the sacrifice of freedom of action. Who can deny the two propositions, first, that the policy of the National Government has been persistently directed towards the improvement of the ameliorative measures for the unemployed, and, secondly, that the treatment of the unemployed here is better than in any other country in the world?
Then comes assistance and persuasion. The National Government have not been satisfied with doing their best to deal with the immediate problem of chronic unemployment created by the geographical shift. In so far as that shift has been inevitable and based on sound economic

reasons, the Government have not attempted to interfere. But it is very far from the truth to say, in the words of this Motion, that they have "refused to recognise the gravity and urgency of the problem." On the other hand, they have made use of many methods of persuasion to induce the industries considering establishment to go to these parts of the country where a surplus of labour is available. It has offered much assistance, direct and indirect, and it has made other efforts, equally important, to increase the mobility of labour from one part of the country to another. Beyond that, it has directed orders to those Darts of the country where labour is available.
I believe that there are proper questions to ask. Has it done enough? Has it done what it has done with sufficient speed? Has it proceeded to the edge of risk in developing the various forms of assistance? My hon. Friend who is to second this Amendment will deal in detail with these questions. And now it has set up a Royal Commission to investigate the whole problem, and to examine the facts which, with all respect to this Motion, are not already known, and to weigh carefully the consequences of a more direct attempt to influence the geographical distribution of industry and industrial population. It may be that the conclusions of the Commission will indicate the desirability of a certain degree of negative compulsion in connection with London, but I sincerely trust that, on general economic grounds, it will come to no conclusion in favour of that positive and general kind of compulsion in the manner suggested by the hon. Member who moved the Motion. I trust that in that view I shall be supported by the speaker from the Opposition Liberal benches, for a year ago in a similar Debate the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) used a sentence with which I fully agree, and which, I think, represents a point of view which Liberals both on this side and on that side will support. He said:
I have never advocated any form of interference in industry for its own sake, but we have to face the question of what inducements"—
not compulsion—
we can provide for new factories to go where they are wanted."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th November, 1936; col. 553, Vol. 317.]
I certainly hope for the support of hon. Members sitting on the Opposition Liberal


benches for my Amendment, not for the Motion. I have been primarily concerned to rebut the terms of the Motion, but that does not mean to diminish the importance of the problem. It is vitally important. Economic movements are more sudden and more sweeping now than formerly, and though we have not a new problem, we have an old problem in a much more acute form. Indeed, it is so acute that many, like the hon. Mover of the Motion, overcome by a spirit of defeatism, see no other solution than the adoption of Socialism, Fascism, Bolshevism or whatever name you choose to give your particular fancy in the way of dictatorial control. If they are correct, if there is no other solution than that, then the solution is worse than the problem and the cure is worse than the disease. It may save the body, but I think that it will destroy the soul. It will be a thousand pities if we let these bogies disturb us and decide to do nothing at all. I am certain that the Government never have intended to do nothing at all, and they will in future continue to experiment and to build up a general practice ever more widely as a result of the experiments they carry out.
I would like to conclude with at least one note in harmony with the Mover. The hon. and gallant Member who moved the Motion—and I agree with him—hoped that the Commission would present its report with rapidity. We must all share that view. It is a large Commission. It has many members. That fact tends to make it work slowly. As the chairman said in the "Times" the other day, it has a vast field to survey. That makes its work more difficult. For those reasons, the House ought to be grateful to the hon. and gallant Member for raising this Debate, for nothing could more forcibly impress upon the minds of those who compose the Commission the intense interest of Members in this House in their work, or persuade them of the need for carrying their work to a conclusion with all speed. I shall be alarmed if the report finally reaches agreement with the point of view of the hon. and gallant Member, but if, on the other hand, it reveals methods whereby persuasion and assistance may be used by the Government more rapidly to mitigate the immediate consequences of industrial dislocation, then I shall hope that on that report the Government will pass early

legislation, if legislation is necessary, in order that that very important problem may proceed a step nearer to final solution.

5.6 p.m.

Mr. Peat: I beg to second the Amendment, which has been so ably moved by my hon. Friend. I should like to challenge the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Jenkins) upon two statements which he made in an attack upon two companies in the iron and steel industry. I want to be quite clear what his actual meaning was in the case of Guest, Keen and Company, because I think that the House and the country at large should be made conversant with what was in his mind. I therefore ask him this question: When he made his statement, did he mean to infer that the company in question, knowing that they were to move their works from Dowlais to Cardiff, assuming that that was the argument, took the opportunity to sell houses, which would be a difficult asset to dispose of, to their workmen be fore they went, and so left their workmen with houses and no wages?

Mr. Jenkins: I cannot say whether or not the company decided to leave before they sold the houses, but it may interest the hon. Gentleman, if I give him an example in my own division. The same company closed the Cwmbran Colliery, but before this was done they disposed of many of the cottages to their workmen, and their workmen still own them.

Mr. Peat: The hon. Gentleman has modified the statement to a certain extent anyhow.

Mr. Jenkins: I did not say at the beginning that the company had decided to leave the district. I said that just prior to leaving the district they disposed of these properties.

Mr. Peat: I accept the statement of the hon. Gentleman, but certainly I should have said that the ordinary person who listened to him in the first place would assume that he intended to suggest that the company had done a very dirty bit of work. The statements which he made will, I am sure, be investigated, and rightly so. The other statement he made is with regard to Stewarts and Lloyds, at Corby. It is really rather unfair to say that a company anxious to produce a new product to make basic bessemer steel and


to go as near as it could to its main raw material—iron ore—is carrying on vandalism and spoiling the countryside. I can quite appreciate what it looks like. I have been in places like that before, but the same argument no doubt applies to the whole of County Durham. If the argument was a good one, that county would not have been developed. It would have remained an agricultural and very beautiful county.

Mr. Jenkins: Does the hon. Member suggest that in the mining of iron ore in Northamptonshire, it is not necessary to leave this land in as good an agricultural condition as that in which they found it? I saw mining carried out in a certain country under very similar conditions, and the rule was that the land behind the mine had to be left in as good agricultural condition as that in which they found it. That was carried out, and the cost was very low indeed. It was a matter of system rather than of cost.

Mr. Peat: I am glad that that point has been cleared up. Having made the point, I should like to get on to the Amendment which I have seconded. It shows a certain identity of purpose between hon. Members on this side and hon. Members on the other side, but there is a difference in the approach. Hon. Gentlemen opposite feel that every conceivable question has been answered and we should go ahead straight away to the location of industry from every angle. I do not think that that point has been achieved yet; a lot has yet to be done. The whole question of the location of industry can be divided into three main objects, (1) the rehabilitation of Special Areas, (2) the strategic position of this country, and (3), the efficiency of industry nationally. The House knows the strides that have been made in the last year by the National Government in attempting to get industries established in the Special Areas. [An HON. MEMBER: "Where?"] It has happened in two of the main Special Areas—South Wales and the North-Eastern area—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member will allow me I will proceed with my speech. What I was about to say, when the interruption was made, was that I did not pretend for a moment that what has been achieved is in any way to be regarded as an enormous achievement. The difficulties are very considerable, but achieve-

ments have been obtained. I will quote what the Commissioner for England and Wales said in his report last year:
Never before has a Government granted powers such as those given to Special Area Commissioners in order to induce industry to establish itself in certain definite localities.
That is a very considerable remark to get from the Commissioner. It must in all circumstances mark a very great advance upon anything that any Government has done in this country before. As the House will know, assistance has been given, by means of reduced taxes, rents and rates, to factories and concerns starting up in the distressed areas. There are two main trading estates. At Team Valley considerable progress has been made; 22 factories have been completed, 10 factories are being constructed and 24 are contemplated, and there have been 400 inquiries, and the work started only in January, 1937.

Mr. Jenkins: How many men are employed?

Mr. Peat: I cannot tell the hon. Member as the information is not in my possession. On the Treforest Estate the advance has not been as great, but there has been great progress. Three factories have been completed, four tenants have been obtained, and contracts for 16 further factories have been agreed to. In regard to finance, there is the Special Areas Reconstruction Association. Hon. Members opposite may smile, but my experience of the North East Coast for 10 or 15 years has been that the greatest difficulty has been in getting finances for the small people. It was either too small for London, or there was no one in the district who would take it on. Now we have this Association, which has made 67 loans of a total of £403,000, resulting in the employment of 6,700 people. We have the Treasury fund for lending money to bigger undertakings. In this case there have been 15 undertakings which have borrowed, with a capital of £2,000,000, and have an employed factor of 3,000 people. We have the Government's Defence programme. These are all attempts to put new industries in the Special Areas.
In South Wales they have three armament factories, and an Admiralty depot, two agency factories, and three more Government factories are under consideration. In the north eastern area there is one Government factory, and Armstrong


Whitworth's has been re-equipped. The total expenditure comes to £15,500,000. Armament orders from 1st April, 1936, to the end of August, 1937, which have gone to the Special Areas of England and Wales, amount to £32,870,000. An attempt has also been made in regard to foreigners who are coming into this country to set up factories, to induce them to start in the Special Areas. The Home Office, the Ministry of Labour and the Board of Trade have been co-operating with the Commissioner to get these people to bring their factories to the distressed areas, and in his reports the Commissioner states there has been the very closest co-operation between the Departments of State and himself.
This is the beginning. Hon. Members opposite may say that it is a very poor beginning, that it ought to have gone much further, and that the stage is set for immediate action. I do not know quite what action hon. Members mean, and they have not told us. There are very definite dangers in saying: "Here are the Special Areas, and we want new industries. We will not allow anybody to start light industries anywhere near London, Birmingham or Manchester, because they are congested areas, and industries must come to the Special Areas." My reply to that is that it is better to have an industry established near London than not to have an industry at all. If we are to have the lighter industries and they are to be started in London, with the object of being near to the big market, although I would rather have the industries started in the distressed areas I would prefer to have them near London than to have no new industries established. If we can persuade people to establish their industries in the Special Areas, well and good.
Another danger is that if we take new industries to Gateshead or anywhere else and begin giving them preferential treatment we may be doing a grave injustice to the people who are already on the spot and who may be in a position, by an extension of their works and by a little capital expenditure, to achieve the same results that we would be subsidising round the corner. In that way we might leave those people and their work people in an inferior position. My caveat is that we should be careful. Do not let us rush into these things like bulls in a

china shop, because the matter is not quite as straightforward as that. Another danger which must be thought of is this. If you plant your subsidised industries in the Special Areas, are you going to be quite sure that the roots of those industries will be sufficiently far down and that the economic foundations are sufficiently good, so that if there is a contraction in trade they will not be the first to be closed down, thereby creating another slum or derelict area? These things have to be considered with the very greatest and gravest care. Therefore, I suggest to the House that that proposition needs very considerable thought.
The hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Mr. A. Edwards), speaking in this House in March, 1936, said that those of us on the Government side assumed that nobody would go to the Special Areas or anywhere else unless their profits were guaranteed. He used the words "guaranteed profits." Profits of any description are anathema to hon. Members opposite. It is not the State's business and it never was the intention of hon. Members on this side of the House that the State should guarantee individual profits, but that they should provide the circumstances under which both capital and labour should be in a position, if they are wise and work hard enough, to get a fair return for their efforts.
Let me turn to the strategic aspect of the location of industry. This subject has been mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher). If we look at London the problem is an enormous one. At the present time our productive industries, our power stations, docks and railway termini are all here, and it is physically impossible to move them under 20 years. The problem in London must remain even if we started to-day to shift our railway termini, our docks and our power stations. We could not do it without 20 years of hard work. In the meantime it seems to me rather futile to say that we are going to deal with that problem by saying that people must not start light industries on the outskirts of London. It is a much bigger problem than that. Therefore, I come back to the point, that this proposition requires much thought, and that it is not proved straight away that we ought to start to deal with the problem by penny-halfpenny sort of


measures for preventing light industries, bicycle works and the rest of them, from coming to the Slough Road.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Is the hon. Member aware that there are certain key industries situated in London essential for the construction of munitions? Does he consider that they should be allowed to remain?

Mr. Peat: Key industries. The other things to which I have referred are key industries, such as railway termini, docks, and munition factories. It may be possible to move the latter, but the main problem will stay exactly where it was. I am not sure, when one comes to look at the matter carefully, that it is proved that we should be better off for decentralisation of our main industries in our great cities and dotting them all over the country. The hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Jenkins), for instance, would have something to say about that. He would say: "Here is a lovely village and you have brought an industry from London and planted it in the midst of beautiful country." I am not sure that, doing as we are now, trying to build up a very considerable air Defence for London, we may not in the next few years have to try to perfect our defences, but I am not such a pessimist as to think that London is completely undefended. That may very well prove, in the comparatively near future, not to be the case.
There is a third angle from which this subject may be approached, and that is the question of the national efficiency of industry. Hon. Members opposite will say that the State should come along and socialise the whole of industry, drive out the motive of profit, and allow production to be carried out in places best suited for the purpose, rather than spoiling the view, or something of that kind. I do not think we are anywhere near that stage of development yet. At the moment we must rely on the industrialists to tell us where they can produce most efficiently. Industry's great contribution and great obligation to the State and the people in the State is to be as efficient as possible and to produce at the lowest cost; but if we are going to say to industry, for instance, in Middlesbrough: "There must be no more extension of your works in Middlesbrough; you must not extend in Middlesbrough, because, for political

reasons, what you have been doing in Middlesbrough we intend should be done in Jarrow, what will be the result? I am not criticising the present scheme for Jarrow, which has been modified from the original scheme and may probably turn out quite well; but are we going to say to the steel industry: "We know your job better than you do." If you say that, then from that moment you take the responsibility of saying to industry that you relieve it of the responsibility of managing its own affairs and of looking after its costs of production.
The point has been made, in regard to the cost of production, that industry ought to bear the cost of its unemployed people and of the social services which it may require if it changes its position. I am not entirely against that point of view, because there is something to be said for it, but each case should be decided on its merits. I do not see why an industry which has been working an ore field and finds that it would be in the national interest to go to some other position, should have to bear the entire brunt of the expense of new social services and of the unemployed it leaves behind. I do not wish to dismiss that point altogether, but I do maintain that each case should be decided on its merits. There may be cases in which an industry should properly bear a certain proportion of that cost.
What we can and should do in regard to location in order to make industry more efficient is to provide industry with better facilities. The docking accommodation in this country is inferior, expensive and slow in most cases, although there are many exceptions. Roads should be improved enormously. There are many ways in which the State could improve the facilities for industry. When the State has done that, it must leave industry to take its own course. I am in favour of industry being organised on a national basis. A nationally organised industry should be in a position to say how and where it is going to expand subject perhaps to supervision by the Import Duties Advisory Committee or some other outside council, who should be able to see that the proposals are not too strongly counter to the public interests.
These Debates on the allocation of industry always miss one feature, and that is that one great industry is not located


where it should be, and that is agriculture. It we can get that industry back anywhere near to where it was, it would be a very good thing. I live in the north of England, near my constituency, and the fields around my house are in many cases covered with the old hummocks, beneath which there used to be villages, churches, and thriving populations. Now the population there is very small. We are talking about the location of industry when we ought to have in mind an attempt to get agriculture back into its proper place in the industrial affairs of this country. I most heartily second the Amendment.

5.30 p.m.

Miss Lloyd George: I rise to support the Motion which has been moved by the hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher), and to dissociate myself from the Amendment which the hon. and gallant Member characterised in some respects as Liberal. The hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton in his early days was a member of the party to which I belong. He took upon himself to twit the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mabane) with being a Liberal, although a piebald one. May I remind the hon. and gallant Member that the form of the hon. Member for Huddersfield is still distinguishable, although I must admit it be came slightly blurred once or twice in the course of his speech. But that cannot be said of the hon. and gallant Member. His form is still undistinguishable, and I should not care to say what form his metamorphosis has taken.
I think we owe a debt to the hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton for having raised this matter which is creating a great deal of concern not only in the House but outside. The hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Peat) referred to the position of agriculture and the vital necessity to restore it to its proper place in the economy of the nation. I should like to remind the House that while between 5 per cent. and 6 per cent. of the population of the country is engaged in agriculture, 20 per cent. of the population is congregated in Greater London alone. That seems to me to be a very serious state of affairs. It means that there are three times as many people in greater London as there are employed in the industry of agriculture in every part of the country. That

cannot possibly be looked upon as a healthy state of affairs.
A great deal has been said about the movement of industry to London and the Greater London area. Between 1932 and 1936 nearly 2,700 new factories were erected in this country, and nearly two-fifths of the employment provided by them was in Greater London, one-eighth was provided in the North-East and the proportion was not very much better in Wales—two of the most persistently distressed areas in the country. The hon. Member for Darlington said that it would take 20 years to really re-organise the whole of this area. If that is so, I think it is time we started. That is an admirable reason for the hon. Member to change his mind and support the Motion instead of the Amendment. But there Is the further point to which reference has been made, and that is the strategic dangers that must follow upon the concentration of industries in the greater London area. Take the case of the Port of London. Since the War the tonnage of foreign trade passing through the Port of London has increased by 14 per cent., and during that time the West Coast ports have lost about 11 per cent. of their trade. The enormous proportion of the foodstuffs for this great area which comes through the Port of London shows that this is a serious factor which will have to be taken into consideration in the event of war; and I hope very much that it is a consideration which is being taken into account by the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence. The hon. Member for Huddersfield said that he was not prepared to condition his life by the thought of impending war. That may be so, but there are numbers of people, and certainly the Government who have to look after the interests and lives of the people, who have to take these factors into consideration.
In regard to the factories which have developed in the Greater London area, the thing which really astonishes me is the number which are definitely armament factories. It was considered absolutely essential in the national interest that more Woolwiches should not be created; indeed it was considered necessary to disperse a certain amount of the activities of Woolwich to other places from strategic considerations. In spite of that fact being the considered opinion


of the Government, armament factories and aircraft factories have been allowed to establish themselves in and around London. At the end of last year out of 25 aircraft manufacturing firms, 12 were in or near London, and a further five in the South-Eastern counties. A factory has been set up at Kingston-on-Thames, a strategic place near the river, which we have always been told is not a very good place. But apart from these industries which are definitely for the manufacture of armaments, there are light industries, motor engineering—which is not very light—typewriters, sewing machines and gramophones, and many other light industries, which, if the experience of the last War goes for anything—sometimes I wonder whether it does—will be converted to war purposes on the outbreak of war. Hon. Members have only to look through the list of factories of these types which have been established in this area to realise how tremendously more vulnerable we have become since the War than we were before.
It is obvious that the more you allow this development to continue, the greater the risk that a vital part of the industrial output of this country in time of war might actually be rendered valueless. Recently we have been discussing the evacuation of the civilian population in case of air raids; the population is to be conveyed to safety. Where are you going to evacuate the population of London? Into Kent, to Slough, to Maidenhead, into Essex? Where will they be allowed to put their tents? In the green belt round London? Greater London covers an area of 700 square miles. Where is this great evacuation to take place? In the last 10 years the population of London has increased by 1,250,000, and is increasing every year. You may have to evacuate the population 10, 20, 25, and in some directions almost 30 miles, before you can get them into anything which remotely resembles a safety zone. If this development goes on unchecked, as it has in the past, it will not be an evacuation but a migration.
The concentrating of industries in this area has gone on parallel with the decline of the great exporting industries and the areas dependent upon them. We com plain of the casual and haphazard way in

which industrial development in the last century took place, but sometimes I wonder whether we are not going one better. The Government have laid great emphasis on the establishment of new industries in the distressed areas as a vital part of their policy for the rehabilitation of these areas. The hon. Member for Darlington enumerated some of the things which have been done by the Government, and seemed to be quite satisfied with the results of their efforts. I confess that I do not feel quite so satisfied. The Government have made the establishment of new industries a vital consideration. So vital was it in their judgment that they were prepared, in the famous phrase, to cast convention overboard—unconventional methods must be adopted, inducements must be offered to industries to attract them to these areas. As a result, the Special Areas Reconstruction Association came into being, more familiarly known as S.A.R.A. I am afraid that S.A.R.A. has proved only slightly less conventional than D.O.R.A.
What has been the result of this great effort to throw overboard all conventions? In 1936, 261 new factories were established in Greater London without any inducement from the Government, and fewer than 10 in the Special Areas. Sir George Gillett in his report issued in September, 1937, says that he has been able to offer financial assistance in respect of rates and rents to 15 undertakings. The number has gone up by five, and he goes on to say:
According to the estimates supplied by these undertakings themselves, employment has been provided by them for about 3,000 workpeople.
Out of a total idle population in the distressed areas of 210,000 that does not seem a very high proportion. But encouraged by this success the Government this year decided to extend the provisions of the Act to areas outside the Schedule to the Act. That provision was incorporated in the Act of this year, and I should like to say at once that its success has not been so instantaneous as in the first instance. Hon. Members will remember that under that Act a committee was to be set up to decide, after a site company had been formed, whether the district was eligible for assistance or not. It was in May of this year—six months ago—that that committee was set up, but it has not yet held its first meeting. Not a single site company has been


formed and of course no financial assistance has been given to a single undertaking in any area. It seems to me that the procedure in the Bill is all wrong. Having looked into it and tried to see whether my own area might not qualify for assistance, I cannot help feeling that if the intention had been to prevent anything happening, the procedure could not have been more admirably framed. I ask the Government to look into this matter. It is almost impossible to get past the red tape and the procedure that has to be gone through before an industry can even go before the committee to prove its eligibility, let alone have any opportunity or chance of getting a grant of any sort or kind.
The hon. Member opposite said that persuasion has been tried. Judging from the results and the figures, it does not look as though persuasion has been very successful; it does not look as though the distressed areas are going to be saved by new industries by the time prosperity abates. I have said carefully "by the time prosperity abates," because I am informed that a slump is a possibility of which we must never speak. Of course, it is not going to come; it may have happened in the bad old days, but the trade cycle has been dispensed with—the Government have seen to that. The Government say quite firmly, "No slump in our time." I may say that that is not a supplication, but a positive statement of fact. The Government say, "In face of that, why should we plan; why plan for something that is not going to happen, certainly not in our time?" I can understand their not feeling very anxious about it. I have come to the conclusion that the Government have about as much urge to plan as a speculative builder on the Kingston By-pass. They will not look ahead. The distant scene has no attraction for them; one step is enough for them every time. Unfortunately, that characterises not only their domestic policy, but their foreign policy as well. But I can assure the Government, at any rate for those for whom I speak this afternoon, that we should speak much less about a slump if we knew that the Government were thinking more about it.
From the Debate so far, it is evident that there is agreement on all sides of the House that something should be done to adjust the balance, that something should be done to stop this process going on. I

think we are all convinced of the necessity for that. What has been done so far? The House discussed the matter a year ago. What has been done since then? The Government have resorted to that last infirmity of ignoble government, a Royal Commission. Up to the present, the evidence that has been brought before the Commission has been from official sources, the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Health, and that evidence has not been very encouraging to those who hope to see something done. The spokesman of the Board of Trade expressed satisfaction with the status quo. He said that after going into the matter, there was reason to suppose that the present distribution was well adapted to serve the economic interests of the country as a whole. I think that the evidence of the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Health can be summed up in the words of Professor Bradley:
This is the best of all possible worlds, and everything in it is a necessary evil.
The Commission have been sitting for some months. How many more months are we to wait for a report which may, and very probably will, if one takes into consideration the evidence they have already had, come to a conclusion more or less of this kind, that although it is very unfortunate, all this took place in the past, that if we had taken the thing in hand in time, it would have been far better for us from every point of view, but that the thing is done and nothing more can be achieved now. As the hon. Member who moved the Motion pointed out, the facts are well known. The facts are in the possession of the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Labour and the Board of Trade, and I do not think it will be possible to get more facts out of the Commission than out of the files of those three Ministries. Those facts are at the disposal of the Government at this very hour. They are delaying until the laborious process of all that evidence has been gone through and given before the Committee.
I do hope that the Government will take action to call a halt, at any rate, to this development of industries in the South. Let them do it now. Let them do that, at least, while the Commission is sitting. Let them take that one positive step. Let them adopt the recommendation made by no less a person than the


late Commissioner for the Special Areas, who said in his third Report that a ban should be put upon industries moving into certain areas, and that certain areas, not only greater London, but other areas in the country where there is equally a concentration, should be declared "out of bounds." That was the Special Commissioner's proposal.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield split hairs between what he called negative and positive compulsion. If it comes to a question of interference with industry, I do not think the hon. Member has much to say—that is if he still supports the Government; for there never has been a Government which has interfered more with industry in this country. The hon. Member spoke about compulsion as though it were something abhorrent to him, so that I cannot understand why he has voted for so many agricultural Measures as he has done. In this country a man may not sell milk below a certain price; he is compelled to sell it at a certain price. I am not arguing against that, but simply arguing the principle of compulsion. A farmer may not put down another field of potatoes; you may not put any more hops down—or whatever you do. [Interruption.] That depends upon whether you support the views of the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) or those of the hon. Members who generally sit below me. Those are all Measures of compulsion which the Government have employed towards industry. It is too late in the day for the Government to argue that it is a matter of principle with them not to interfere.

Mr. Mabane: I referred to interference by consent. I said that before the Government interfere with an industry, they must be quite sure that they have general consent. I said that the present trend clearly indicates that individuals are ready to consent to restrictions of their rights if they can be persuaded that the social good is thereby served, but that the essential element of such restrictions is that there should be general consent.

Miss Lloyd George: Compulsion by consent by all means, but the hon. Member has agreed to Measures where there has been compulsion without consent.

Mr. Mabane: What Measures?

Miss Lloyd George: I think the Coal Bill is an instance.

Mr. Mabane: That is based on consent.

Miss Lloyd George: Certainly the agricultural industry is an instance.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I apologise for interrupting the hon. Lady, whose speech I am very much enjoying, but may I remind her that in every marketing scheme the constituents within the marketing area can either adopt or reject the scheme?

Miss Lloyd George: The minority is compelled; therefore, there is definite compulsion. I think it is obvious that the Measures that have been adopted to induce industries to go into the depressed areas are not sufficient. I feel that the Government could assist enormously in attracting industries to the distressed areas if they would develop those areas more. It is of no use thinking that one can equip a distressed area for new industries by clearing up a few slag heaps. Much more has to be done. I would like to see the Government improve communications in the distressed areas, for, after all, industry will always go where the communications are good.
I will give South Wales as an instance. I do not know what has happened about the Severn Bridge, and I hope we may have some information upon that, but I am certain that an enormous amount could be done in South Wales to make it more attractive by improving communications there. I would like to see the burden of rates lightened in the distressed areas. I believe that the hon. and gallant Gentleman who is to reply most strongly recommended in his report that that measure should be taken. I hope he will be able to give some news to-day that something is at last to be done in that direction. There is a great deal that could be done, but I strongly urge the Government, whatever they may eventually decide to do, to stop at all costs this further concentration and development in the South. I strongly urge them now, while the Commission is sitting, to place a ban upon this further migration to the South.

5.59 p.m.

Mr. Rowlands: I rise to support the Amendment, but, in doing so, I am no less anxious than hon. Members opposite


to have new industries in the Special Areas. As one who was brought up in the coalmining industry of the Rhondda Valley, it hurts me to see that valley in the condition in which it is to-day; but I cannot help thinking that a great deal of the fault lies with people in the past, even with some of the coalowners in the past. When, many years ago, a huge quantity of coal was leaving that valley every day, I wondered how long that state of affairs would continue. Recently we heard the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall) speak about coal as a wasting asset. The coal in the Rhondda Valley has been worked since I was a boy. The best seams were worked out first, and long ago it struck me that the day would come when the last ton of coal would have been worked. I would also observe that thousands of the workmen in the Rhondda Valley have purchased their houses, under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act.
As far back as 1918, apart from the development of electricity and of alternative forms of fuel, I saw that the day would come when this once great industry in the Rhondda Valley would be derelict. I approached some of the coalowners and asked them what they considered to be the probable duration of the life of the Rhondda Valley as a coalmining centre. I was told, in 1918, that another 25 years from that date would see most of the best seams worked out. I then put a very pertinent question to the gentleman who gave me that information. I asked him whether he did not think that it was his duty and that of his fellow-coalowners, who had reaped such advantage from those valleys, to endeavour to establish other industries in place of coalmining and to provide new avenues of occupation for the young people who were growing up there. But nothing was done. In 1928 the colliery in which I was working stopped work. I took it upon myself to go to the general manager and to point out that there was an excellent site there available for an industry, with sidings and splendid reservoirs of water. I suggested that the general manager should offer that site to some industry, but nothing came of it.
Therefore, hon. Members can see that, as far as I am concerned, this is no new problem. I thought of this question many years ago, and I have no hesitation

in saying that had those who reaped advantage from those areas in the good days of the past encouraged other industries to come there we would not be in the deplorable condition which we are in to-day. But the question is, what can be done now? Upon that question we must concentrate our attention. Hon. Members opposite have submitted a Motion which, in my opinion, makes three unfounded charges against the Government. It charges the Government with not recognising the gravity of the situation. I think no Government have recognised the gravity of the situation more than the present Government. We know that they have difficulties to contend with, but they have paid the greatest attention to the Special Areas, and by the measures which they have adopted have considerably improved the position in the Special Areas. It is also charged against them that while the evil grows they hold a long inquiry into facts already known. I am surprised at hon. Members opposite objecting to the Commission which is sitting at the present time.

Mr. Jenkins: Will the hon. Member indicate what improvements have been brought about in the Rhondda Valley?

Mr. Rowlands: The only improvement there has been its share of the general improvement in the coal-mining industry, but taking the Special Areas as a whole, I will allow the Commissioner for the Special Areas who has just reported to reply to the hon. Member:
The twelve months under review have witnessed a great improvement in the economic position in all the special areas. During the 12 months unemployment has fallen in the areas by 25.6 per cent. of which only a comparatively small part was due to transference out of the areas. The corresponding reduction starting of course from a lower percentage figure for the rest of England and Wales was 12 per cent.
Those are the words of Sir George Gillett. It may be said that that improvement is due to rearmament. Sir George Gillett deals with that point also:
While it is impossible to assess in precise figures the effects of the various measures initiated by my predecessor (Sir Malcolm Stewart) for the economic development of the areas, it is I think equally impossible to deny that those measures are facilitating and contributing materially to the improvement in the area.
When the hon. Lady the Member for Anglesey (Miss Lloyd George) says that


grants have only been made to 15 companies in South Wales, I would remind her that to have made grants since the Special Areas Act was passed to 15 companies in one area is not a bad record at all. To proceed with my quotation:
The Government's armament programme has undoubtedly contributed to the recovery of the Special Areas. Nevertheless as far as I have been able to ascertain, the greater part of the recovery in the Special Areas, with certain exceptions has been independent of armaments work.
I think that is the answer to hon. Members opposite. Then the Government are accused of having appointed this Commission to inquire into facts which are already known. I do not know whether hon. Members realise what is intended here. It is intended to interfere with the liberty of industrialists in deciding where they should locate their industries. Is it proposed that that step should be taken without the fullest possible inquiry? Personally, I think it would only be reasonable that the Government should make the fullest possible inquiry before embarking upon such a change of policy.
The Government are also accused of being content with submitting evidence which is calculated to discourage the early adoption of an effective policy for the planning and location of industry. I take that to be the evidence to which the hon. Lady the Member for Anglesey referred, and also the evidence given by the officials of the Ministry of Health. I have read that evidence as it appeared in the "Times," and I find nothing wrong with it. I think it would be very wrong in the case of an inquiry of this kind not to give the fullest opportunity, to those people who are in close touch with industry and the location of industry, to put their whole case before the Commission. It is not so much a matter of putting a case as of stating the facts, and it is better that such a Commission should know the difficulties, than that they should take steps which would after wards be regretted, by acting in ignorance of the difficulties. But the evidence of the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Health officials is nothing compared to the evidence of Sir Malcolm Stewart in his report. He says:
Some advocate the compulsory location of industry as a sure cure for unemployment but this I regard as unnecessary and dangerous.

I take it that it is the policy which hon. Members opposite are banking upon to produce great results, that Sir Malcolm Stewart regards as unnecessary and dangerous.

Mr. A. Bevan: We are dealing in this Motion with the distribution of industry.

Mr. Rowlands: The Motion deals with the location of industry. If time permits I will later on deal with the question of inducement to industry. Sir Malcolm Stewart also says:
I have stated that I am opposed to using compulsion to dictate to industry where it should go.
I think hon. Members on this side will agree with Sir Malcolm Stewart. As far as the information that we have goes, it would be a great mistake to seek to compel industries to go to these localities. It might be, as he says, a wise thing to tell industries where they ought not to go for national reasons and I can see the point of view of those who wish to prevent industries going to the south. But if we are not to compel all industries to go to these districts, what other methods are available? There are only two—persuasion and inducement. Persuasion has been belittled and I have a certain amount of sympathy with those who have belittled it. Persuasion has not been an unqualified success, but it has had some success. I do not forget that when Richard Thomas and Company's works were moved to Ebbw Vale, even the "Daily Herald" attributed that to the influence of the late Prime Minister.

Mr. Bevan: But the hon. Member must not forget that Sir William Firth has taken every opportunity of denying that there was any Government interference whatever.

Mr. Rowlands: I am sorry that the hon. Member will not accept the view of the "Daily Herald" even before that of Sir William Firth. Usually a certain construction is put by hon. Members upon anything said by a Capitalist, whereas in their view the "Daily Herald" can print nothing but the truth. Persuasion, I must admit, has not been an unqualified success, but we cannot say that inducement has not been an unqualified success. It is only since the last Special Areas Act that the Commissioner has had the right to give the. inducements which are available to-day, and what has been the result?


As the hon. Member for Anglesey said, since that time lo industries have been established in South Wales and contributions have been given to 15 industries. Surely hon. Members cannot say that inducement has lamentably failed. It seems extraordinary to me that when a committee of inquiry is appointed to deal with a particular question hon. Members opposite should table a Motion on that particular question. A committee was recently appointed to go into the question of annual holidays with pay, and hon. Members opposite immediately raised the subject by a Motion. I do not know whether they think that such tactics are likely to intimidate a committee into making a certain report. Now we have a com mission inquiring into this very serious problem, and once again we have a Motion from the opposite side asking the House to declare upon it. I appeal to the House to reject the Motion if only—apart from other important reasons—because that commission is sitting. It would be an insult to the commission if this Motion were passed.

6.14 p.m.

Mr. Charles Brown: I am afraid that no arguments of mine would impress the hon. Member who has just resumed his seat, and who seems to imagine that he is the perfect follower of a perfect Government who are doing everything they can to solve all the problems of the age. Unfortunately, we do not believe that at all. The hon. Lady the Member for Anglesey (Miss Lloyd George) advanced some very cogent arguments which, I hope, will in duce hon. Members to support this Motion in the Lobby. Incidentally she shot some very witty arrows at a supine and lackadaisical Government, and I only hope they will reach their mark and stir some Members of the Administration into greater activity. The Mover of the Amendment admitted that this Motion called attention to a serious problem. His real argument against it was that he did not want national direction and control of industry, because it would destroy what he called the dynamics of industrial development. I am sorry he is not here, but the Seconder is. Surely he ought to know quite well that the location of industry is not the primary dynamic factor in industry. The dynamic factor really is the changing technique that takes place in industry from time to time, and as that changing technique takes place the con-

cerns which are most ready to adopt it make greater progress and development, of course, than those which refuse to do so. But that has very little to do with the location of industry, with certain exceptions.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher), in the opening part of his speech, referred to the fact that in the past geological and climatic conditions have played a part in deciding where industry should be located, and obviously that embraces almost all the truth so far as coal is concerned, and I think he instanced Lancashire and the cotton industry when he was trying to make the point about the climatic influence on the location of industry. Anyone who knows anything about the textile trade knows very well that the temperature and humidity of the atmosphere are very important factors in regard to the manufacture and the making up of finished goods from certain kinds of yarn, but it is nowadays so easy to create the temperature and humidity conditions in factories where you want to do that, that there is no necessity to have those factories located in places primarily dependent on those climatic conditions. There again is another illustration of what is the real dynamic factor in industry rather than its location—the changing technique that may be employed in the processes of manufacture owing to the growth of knowledge in every direction.
I think that every hon. Member who has spoken already has expressed some concern about the way in which the location of industry affects the distribution of population, and I think we must all be agreed that the distribution of population in a crowded island like our own is very important indeed, and that men and women in general, especially in a country where land is privately owned and where the instruments of production are in the hands of private owners, must go to those areas where they can gain for themselves the greatest economic advantages, where, in other words, they can be most sure of a livelihood. I know there are exceptions to that principle, and probably in some senses they are very admirable exceptions. I know there are people who prefer to remain in a relative state of poverty in a place they love and to which they are attached rather than seek prosperity among strangers, and in


all probability the country is better off because there are such people in the community, who do not always over emphasise the material advantages they may gain by going from place to place.
But I think it is increasingly obvious to those who have studied the period of depression through which we have passed that if you have areas where your industries are mixed, the effects of depression are not so bad as they are in areas where your industry is all of one kind. I happen to live in an area which is predominantly mining, and during the whole of the great mining depression that area has never had to be classified as a Special Area or a distressed area. The primary reason for that is that in that area we have other industries, such as hosiery, tin-box making, and boot and shoe making, and while the miners have been doing very badly, their daughters and their sons who have not been working in the pits have been able to bring wages into the household. We have, therefore, escaped the worst effects of industrial depression, and I think that if you survey this problem in its widest aspects, there are very good reasons why a Government, if it is concerned about the future well-being of the country, should turn its attention to this question of the distribution and location of industry.
So far as urban areas and towns are concerned, there ought not to be a great deal of difficulty in doing that. I know that we arrive at a point where hon. Members opposite will argue against us, because this involves the establishment of a principle of prohibition and restraint in regard to the location of industry that up to now has not applied so far as English industrial growth and development are concerned, but I hope the attitude will not be taken up by those hon. Members that, as the hon. Member for Anglesey said, we are asking for an interference with industry which is wholly unjustified. Let us remember that when capitalist enterprise breaks down in any area, it is the Government of the day that has to salvage it, and so sooner or later the Government has to come in, and it would be infinitely better if it came in before the evil was wrought than after it has actually been wrought.
I understand that there is circulating in Government circles and in their newspapers a phrase which runs something

like this, "A war deferred may be a war avoided." If there is one thing that we are planning against in this country it is against the eventualities of future war. If hon. Members opposite believe that by their vast armament programme they are going to assure for us that long future peace which sometimes is implied in their speeches on this problem, let me close by making the request that at least they will so plan, control, and conduct industry in the future that the mass of our people who have suffered in days gone by from all the ill-effects of industrial depression may, in the days that are to come, be saved from many of those evils.

6.24 p.m.

Mr. Richards: It is quite natural that this subject should have engaged the attention and the interest of the House, because we may generally say, I think, that this is possibly, from the domestic point of view, the most important subject that is going to engage the attention, not only of this Government, but of every successive Government in this country probably for the next 50 years. References have already been made to the very serious concentration of industry and of population in this country, and it is sometimes said that it has taken place under what might be called natural conditions working within private competition. The hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. C. Brown) has referred to the fact that more important than natural conditions are the technical developments that science is every day placing at the disposal of industry. It is true that there is no more coal in the country to-day than there was 1,000 years ago, but it is equally true that the development of the industry has been very gradual, and in the case of a new industry, such as the Kent coalfield and other possible coalfields that might be discovered and worked in the future, we know that the development even of that industry, which, as was said by the hon. Member beside me, largely depends on geological factors that we cannot alter, is still increasingly dependent upon technical development; and that is the case with most industries nowadays.
The question that, I think, the House must face, and future Governments certainly must face, is as to whether the


time for this so-called natural development and localisation of industry in certain parts is really not at an end. Let me refer, for example, to the strange situation that you have in America. We have one great centre of population, but the interesting thing if you look at the census of population and its distribution in America, America being, of course, one of the leading industrial countries of the world, if not the leading industrial country, is that over the whole area of that Continent the population is fairly evenly distributed. It is partly due to the fact that they have arranged themselves with these technical developments to an extent that we have not in this country, and that they have been able to set up new cities of a considerable but not of an extravagant size in remote parts of the Continent. That is the question that is going to face this country. Can we control, as the opener and other speakers on this side have said, the very serious question of the concentration of population and of industries at certain points in the national interest generally?
The sole motive hitherto has been the profit-making motive and the existence of what is known as private competition. When private competition did exist, I think there was something to be said for the distribution of industry in the way in which it has been distributed, but when you take into consideration the total cost of the industry—and I think that is the point of view that this House ought to take into account, not merely the money cost of industry, not merely whether you can produce a certain thing a little cheaper in one place than in another and so make better profits, but whether the total cost to the community in health, in amenities, in opportunities for human development—the fact of the matter is that we have produced some of these commodities and made our fortunes at too great a cost altogether, and the community must now consider the question not merely from the point of view of profit. I do not deny that that is an important consideration, particularly under a national system, but we must consider the thing from the wider point of view of the national efficiency and of the health of the people who are engaged in these industries generally. We find that industries in certain localities to which frequent reference has been made to-night are rapidly becoming derelict,

arid the communities in those places, and the Government themselves, are left with the very serious task of salvaging those who are left stranded in those very dreary spots.
If we regard for a moment the position of London from this point of view, it is rather interesting, and indeed it is important also. It has been said by hon. Members on this side to-night that the fortune of this country was built up, generally speaking, in the derelict areas. That is true. The great heavy industries upon which the prosperity of the country has depended during the last 150 years were mostly localised in those areas. The growth of London in recent times is rather peculiar, and I do not think that, speaking generally, the industries in and around London are as important strategically in our international trade as the great industries in the other parts of the country were formerly. London is one of the richest cities in the world and has the biggest population, and the result is that industries have been attracted to London because of the large markets at their doors and of the considerable wealth that there is here.
The industries in London are small—and important from many points of view—and they cater merely for a local demand which is very largely of the luxury type. London is well served directly by many of those industries, but the tragedy of the position is that the wealth that London spends on these industries and the amenities that London has enjoyed have been largely derived from the great basic industries of the areas that have been made derelict. The growth of industry in the neighbourhood of London may be a sign not of the increasing prosperity of the country, but of the decline of the industrial power of England. We are often teld by hon. Members on the other side that we ought to cultivate the industry of this country and do our best to satisfy the home demand. There is no denying the reasonableness of that point of view up to a certain point, but we must remember that the wealth of the country has been built up and that the workers have had the employment that they have had until recent times, because the industries were not catering primarily for their own people, but were catering for other people. I am afraid that it looks as if that period, if it has not come to an end, is approaching the end.
The he Motion has been moved to-night because we cannot leave industry to develop in this haphazard way. There is little sign of health in the development that has taken place, particularly in the neighbourhood of London. There has been a distribution of electric power all over the country, and if the Government were more active in that respect it could be distributed over a still wider area and made more efficient, and industries could be distributed, as they ought to be, over a much wider area. The development of particular machinery, too, makes it much easier for people who have not perhaps had a full engineering training to use those machines than was formerly the case. The time has come, therefore, when we might very well seriously consider the redistribution of industry on a rational basis. The Motion has been moved because we believe on this side that that is the only hope for the future of industry in this country. Russia has rapidly become one of the great industrial nations of the world, and if it is not going to be supreme in a short time, it is certainly moving in that direction. The industry of Russia has been deliberately planned and controlled, while we, the oldest industrial nation in the world, are still carrying on in the old chaotic fashion. That is a good argument why we should take this matter in hand and not let industry develop any longer in a haphazard way, but, from the social, the economic and international point of view, do everything in our power to control its future development.

6.36 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Euan Wallace): The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Nuneaton (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher) has deserved the gratitude of the House for putting this Motion down. He has given us the privilege of listening to a number of very interesting speeches, and by no means the least interesting is the speech to which we have just listened from an hon. Member who seldom intervenes in our Debates. Any suggestion that the Government are determined to do nothing about the location of industry in future is negatived by the Amendment which has been moved and which I hope the House will accept. I should like to follow a number of speakers from all sides into the Special Areas and other places,

but on a private Member's day I must confine myself directly to the Motion and the Amendment. I hope to indicate why, in the view of the Government, the former should be rejected and the latter passed.
The Motion begins by referring to an opinion expressed by the House 12 months ago. If the Mover referred, as I presume he did, to a Debate on 18th November last year on a Motion that steps should be taken to prevent a further industrial concentration round London and the south, I should make it plain that it was only accepted after the President of the Board of Trade had said that compulsion must be excluded. Therefore, we do not regard the House as being in any way committed to the policy of compulsion as opposed to the policy of inducement which has already been practised. There are two distinct aspects of the problem with which the Motion deals—first, the desirability that new industrial undertakings should be opened in the Special Areas; and, second, the undesirability of such undertakings being opened in areas already overgrown or congested, more particularly in Greater London.
The question of getting new industrial undertakings in the Special and distressed Areas is one with which the Government have great sympathy, and it has been dealt with by hon. Members who have quoted undeniable facts and documents. In the first place, the Commissioners for the Special Areas were set up with wide powers to offer inducements to people who intended to open new factories to open them in the Special Areas. In the second place, there is at present a preference, other things being equal, to undertakings in the Special and distressed Areas in the placing of orders under the rearmament programme, and, as a corollary to that, new Government factories required by that programme are placed, as far as possible, in those areas. The House will appreciate that in the case of these factories there are considerations, apart from the human and purely economic. In the third place, preference is given to the Special Areas as regards London Transport and main line railways development schemes which have been assisted by loans guaranteed by the Treasury. The Government have, there fore, already taken certain steps designed either specifically to induce new undertakings to go to the Special Areas or which have a tendency in that direction.


They are not restricted to those areas which were scheduled as Special Areas in the first instance and some of the benefits have been extended to other areas.
Under the Special Areas (Development and Improvement) Act, 1934, no financial assistance was given to industries carried on for gain. The Government had in mind the point which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Peat) with regard to what he called "subsidising round the comer," that is, subsidising a particular concern at the expense of somebody else in the neighbourhood who is trying to carry on the same business without assistance. All the measures taken under that Act which assisted the economic development of an area, or which tended to make it more generally attractive, naturally did something towards influencing new undertakings to go there. Then there was the Special Areas (Reconstruction) Act, 1936, referred to by the hon. Lady the Member for Anglesey (Miss Lloyd George) as "S.A.R.A." That Act gave assistance to small industrialists by way of loan. The hon. Lady was somewhat scathing as to the practical effect of that assistance, but I would like to say to her that even the putting of 6,700 people into work means something.
The Special Areas (Amendment) Act, 1937, marked a further development of the policy of helping the Special Areas. Under that Act the Commissioners may actually let factories to undertakings carried on for gain. Temporary financial inducement can be offered by way of remission of rent, rates and taxes for a limited period of five years; and, as an extra concession, the National Defence Contribution can be remitted. Under this Act the Treasury have also power to make loans to new industrial undertakings. All these inducements have been designed for the purpose of assisting the location of industry in the sense of trying to get it developed in certain areas where it is specially wanted.
Then there are the Trading Estates, which I look upon as one of the most promising features for helping the Special Areas, whose great trouble has usually been that they have been dependent upon one industry. They are meant to induce that diversity of industry which is now regarded on all sides as the greatest guarantee against severe unemployment. Trad-

ing estate companies are not carried on for gain. They are financed by a loan from the Special Areas Fund. They are not expected to pay interest during the early period of development. The schemes which have been so far approved, although in the first stage of development represent a considerable capital expenditure. There is the Team Valley Estate at Gateshead, where the schemes already approved involve a capital expenditure amounting to £1,400,000; the Treforest Estate in Wales, £800,000; and the estate at Hillington, near Glasgow, £400,000. My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Peat), whose speech, if I may say so, was a model of clear construction, referred to the number of factories which have been opened in those areas, and I want to say this about the Team Valley Estate. It is worth remembering that in September, 1936, little more than a year ago, it was virgin soil. In the interval 56 factories have been completed, or have been planned to meet definite requirements. In only one case were financial inducements required, for it was found that the provision of facilities and amenities was in others sufficient to attract new types of industry. I think that is an intensely encouraging sign.
Perhaps I may be forgiven for referring for a moment to the Jarrow steel works, in spite of the absence of the hon. Lady who has done so much to get them started. The Special Areas Commissioners offered a contribution in remission of rents, rates and Income Tax; the Treasury remitted the National Defence Contribution and have agreed to provide loan money under the 1937 Act; the Nuffield Trustees are taking up a large number of shares, and the balance of the £1,000,000 required to start those steel works and give that much needed employment is being subscribed by the Consett Iron Company and through the Bankers Industrial Development Corporation. That is, I think, a very good example of what can be done by a concerted and co-operative effort on the part of the various organisations. Governmental and otherwise, which are determined to do something for these areas.

Mr. C. Brown: Would you not call that a backstairs subsidy?

Captain Wallace: I should not really mind whether it came by the backstairs,


or the front stairs, or up in the lift. The hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. C. Brown) is not addressing himself to exactly the same point as I am. I am attempting to show that the Government are not indifferent to taking some hand in the location of industries, as witness what we have already done. I think it was always recognised that the creation of certain Special Areas, definitely demarcated in the Schedule to an Act, could not satisfy everybody for all time, and I must say that I had a very considerable job in defining the boundaries of the area which I originally had to report upon. The Special Areas (Amendment) Act of this year did not extend the Special Areas as such, but under that Act the Treasury can do various things outside them. They can subscribe to share capital or make loans to site companies, and they can make loans to industrialists who bring new undertakings into these areas and "occupy factories provided on the sites. At this point I can tell the hon. Lady the Member for Anglesey that my information, which I offer to her with great respect, is that a site company has already been set up in Lancashire, although I do not say that it has started work.

Miss Lloyd George: The fact remains that meetings have been held for a single company.

Captain Wallace: I will not argue about that, but I believe the company has been set up and that there have been companies who have succeeded in transacting their business on paper. These things can be done not only in the Special Areas as scheduled in the original Act, but in areas where the Minister is satisfied, after consultation with the Advisory Committee, that there is, and has been for some considerable time, severe unemployment, and that unless financial assistance is provided to a site company which is prepared to operate in the area, there is no immediate likelihood of a substantial increase in employment, and also that employment in that area is mainly de pendent on one or more industries—always a sign of a dangerous area from the employment point of view—which are unable to provide sufficient employment by reason of the general depression in those industries.
Let me pass to the orders under the rearmament programme, I can carry the

figures given by my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington a little further, in the light of information which I have received. Up to 31st October, 1937—starting from the same date as he gave, 1st April, 1936—orders in connection with the rearmament programme placed in the Special Areas amount to just under £50,000,000, and in depressed areas other than Special Areas to £33,750,000. As regards the location of factories required under the Defence programme, the White Paper issued on 3rd March last year announced that in the determination of the siting of these factories both vulnerability of site and the needs of the Special Areas would receive consideration. I do not think anybody will quarrel with the first proviso, and the Prime Minister, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer reaffirmed in this House on 20th January of this year the policy to establish new factories in Special and depressed areas so far as practical considerations permit. Out of 10 new Government factories, or extensions to existing Government factories, erected or in course of erection under the rearmament programme, six are in Special Areas and two are in areas of heavy unemployment outside the Special Areas; and of 18 agency factories four are in Special Areas and five in areas of heavy unemployment outside Special Areas.
There is one more point which I should like to mention in connection with the Government's action in influencing the location of industry as regards areas of heavy unemployment. Occasionally aliens who live in countries not so happy as this wish to come over here to establishundertakings, and during the past 18 months consultations have been going on between the Home Office, the Ministry of Labour and the Board of Trade in order to point out to them the great desirability of establishing their undertakings in the Special Areas; and so persuasive have been the gentlemen who have been dealing with this question that no fewer than 14 undertakings have been established during the last 18 months in the Special Areas and 31 in the older industrial areas, where they will be particularly welcome.
I must turn now to the second aspect of this problem, and that is whether new undertakings should definitely be prohibited from going into certain areas and in particular into the area around London.


I think the House will agree that this involves very much wider considerations than its possible repercussions on the Special Areas. The Amendment so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mabane) refers to the dangers of interfering with the normal course of industrial development, and as the hon. Lady the Member for Anglesey mentioned Sir Malcolm Stewart I would remind her that in his third Report he flatly rejected as unnecessary and dangerous the idea of compulsory control of the location of industry; although I frankly admit that he did add that the extension of existing factories should be prohibited in Greater London, except under licence. I should like to say, in passing, that I am sure the whole House enjoyed the speech of the hon. Lady for Anglesey. To me she seems to be "following in father's footsteps" and covering up by a devastating charm an occasional lack of accuracy or relevancy.
When this report by Sir Malcolm Stewart came out more than a year ago the Prime Minister, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, said that he did not see anything very revolutionary in the proposal to prohibit factories in certain areas, because it was only an extension of a common practice in town-planning schemes where there is a built-up area and it is laid down that in a part of that area no factory shall be erected. I think that statement should be enough to assure the House that the Prime Minister approached this problem without any prejudice; and in the same speech he did point out that the fact of excluding new undertakings from Greater London would not necessarily mean that they would go into the Special Areas. The Prime Minister suggested that they might possibly go to Birmingham; they might, of course, even go to Nuneaton. Therefore, he said, it would not be sufficient to consider drawing a ring round Greater London alone and prohibiting factories going into that area. He described the whole matter as "a biggish proposition"—those were the words he used—and a pro position which needed examination; and he said that that examination it should have.
From that speech of the Prime Minister's sprang the present Royal Commission under Sir Montague Barlow. I am not going to say anything about that

Commission, except that it is a very strong one, or to say anything about its terms of reference, except that they are extremely comprehensive. I do not think any Member in any part of the House will feel that the activities of Sir Montague Barlow and his distinguished colleagues are any way handicapped by their terms of reference. The Motion suggests that this inquiry is superfluous on the ground that the facts are all known. I have no doubt that some of them are. There are some very obvious disadvantages in large concentrations of population. I was rash enough to draw attention to them in a report which I wrote some three years ago, a good many of the recommendations of which have been adopted. There are, of course, also some advantages, from a purely economic point of view, and from the point of view of consumers, in these large concentrations; there are, I think, also very many factors which are not apparent at first sight. The arguments for the concentration of industry are mainly economic, at any rate as regards London, and the arguments against it are mainly strategic and social. I think the House will realise that it would be impossible for us to say that any existing Department of the Government—or any Department which is ever likely to be created—has been, up to the present, in a position to consider this enormous problem as a whole and to correlate all the facts which are available. We were assured by the Prime Minister himself only six days ago that the Commission is proceeding with its work as expeditiously as possible, and I do not think it would be fair on them to pass a Motion which suggests that their labour is absolutely unnecessary.
The Motion concludes with a demand for the location of industries in accordance with the national interest; so far the Government have taken the view that national interests have been best served by leaving the individual business man to put his business where he thinks he can run it most successfully. Perhaps I might remind the Mover, who I see is laughing at that statement, that we still live in this country upon our export trade. We can do export trade only if we satisfy two rather stringent conditions: we have to produce goods for sale abroad of the kind that are wanted, and at a price which our customers are able and willing to pay. Anything therefore


which tends to raise unduly the price of our exported products may lead us into a very awkward situation. So far the Government have taken that view. It may be necessary to revise it in the different conditions which obtain to-day; but it is very clearly impossible to say that we ought to revise it offhand before this very powerful Commission has reported.
There have been accusations that His Majesty's Government have not got an open mind on the subject. It has been suggested that we have a parti-pris, and the particular reason given for that suggestion is the evidence submitted by the Board of Trade which drew attention to certain economic facts which must be taken into account in applying any policy which involves interference with industry. In fact, I think the appointment of the Royal Commission is sufficient evidence that the Government have an open mind. The Board of Trade evidence, as submitted by the Second Secretary, was the evidence of one particular Government Department on one aspect of the problem before the Royal Commission which particularly concerned the Board of Trade, and I think that the paragraphs in the Board of Trade evidence to which most attention has been directed in this House and in the Press can be summed up in this way: It is said in effect that if regulation of the location of industry is found to be necessary for any reason, then care should be taken to ensure that the competitive power of the exporting industries is not thereby reduced, that the price of goods to home consumers is not thereby raised, and that industrialists are not discouraged from starting new enterprises. I do not think anybody in any quarter of the House will be inclined on careful reflection to deny the desirability, indeed the necessity, of taking care in those directions.
A number of other Government Departments have given, or are to give, evidence before the Royal Commission. I think it is obvious that for the Government to make up its mind between all its Departments, and then to give what one might call the considered opinion of His Majesty's Government to the Royal Commission, would be really to torpedo a great deal of the work which we expect that Commission to do. Surely it is fairer, it is more thorough, and it will

in the end be infinitely more efficient, if each of the Departments of Government puts before that Commission the aspects of this very great problem which particularly concern it and we then allow the Royal Commission to draw its conclusion.
The Motion before the House starts from false premises by suggesting that this House has already taken a decision in favour of compulsion; it suggests action without an adequate knowledge of the consequences which might follow that action; and it ends by drawing a conclusion from the evidence of one Government Department which is totally at variance with the facts. The Amendment, on the other hand, recognises the danger of a leap in the dark, records the view that the sooner the Royal Commission is able to report the better, and encourages the House to hope that it will report soon and enable the Government to consider taking some further action. I hope that in these circumstances the House will decisively reject the Motion and accept the Amendment.

Mr. Edwards: As I followed the argument of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman it seemed to me that the Government claim to have succeeded by inducements in getting manufacturers to go into these Special Areas. They are going there to demonstrate that it is economic to manufacture in those districts. If they do that, will the Government take action to prevent industries coming into the London area?

Captain Wallace: We had better wait until we get the report of the Royal Commission.

7.7 p.m.

Mr. Lawson: I had in my hand this morning a certain report of an investigation, and as it seemed likely that the hon. and gallant Gentleman would probably be taking part in this Debate I thought I would bring it down to the House; but that report was so truthful about the state of the Special Areas that its author had particularly investigated, it was so thorough in its proposals, and so scathing about the general neglect of the community whose economic conditions it had investigated, that I thought that, as many of us on this side of the House hold the author in such regard, out of sheer kindness I would not quote his own report


against him. As a matter of fact, he spent the best part of his speech in telling us what we could all read in the report in the Vote Office. He might just as well have read the report of the present Special Commissioner, except that he kept clear of that kind of indignation that is characteristic of every Commissioner, including himself, who investigates conditions there. And indeed the Commissioner's report is so devastating, in spite of the many small items that he accumulates which the hon. and gallant Gentleman naturally would not leave out, that he concludes by saying that the Government cannot wash its hands of the question of the location of industry. The hon. and gallant Gentleman was careful not to refer to that particular problem.
I think my hon. Friend has well earned the thanks of the House for raising this problem, and in dealing with it I think it is just as well to bear in mind what is the position of some of the areas in question. The gentleman who is con ducting the investigation made a statement last week in which he says that the condition of the Special Areas is only a minor part of the greater question they have to investigate. He is a man extremely experienced, he has had a term of office in the Ministry of Labour, and he is one for whose judgment we have some regard, and we are well aware that the question of the Special Areas is not the sole question with which the Commission has to deal. But I want to remind the House and, if I may, the Commission through this House, that the human conditions, or shall I say inhuman conditions which have prevailed in the Special Areas for many years, are the primary and sole cause of the appointment of that Commission.
As a matter of fact, from the time the question was raised in this House, about 1932, not only this House but the public began to get extremely alarmed at the conditions of whole masses of our fellow countrymen and country-women. But the Government stage by stage retreated until it appointed its Commissioners, and in the face of such reports as that which the hon. and gallant Gentleman gave, it was then compelled to do something about the matter. It, therefore, appointed a Royal Commission. We did not accept that method as the right one. We said even then that there was plenty of knowledge of the conditions of the

people to warrant judgment and action, but we said, "We will wait and see what they will do." After three years the net result of the Commission's work in the Special Areas was such that the Government was finally compelled to do something. Nobody was satisfied. Why, even now, after two years of boom, what is the situation? There are over 200,000 unemployed in the Special Areas and 18,000 people over 45 years of age, who have no prospect whatever of finding work. The Government simply had to act, and so this Commission was appointed and the names were given to the House in July of this year. It began its investigations in October, and I must pay my tribute to the work that its members have done.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman's explanation of the evidence of the Board of Trade does not exactly meet the case. When the other night I raised, on the Motion for the Adjournment, the question of this evidence—and that is one of the vital things in this Motion—the right hon. Gentleman chided me gently with the fact that I had not read the evidence. That was quite true: nobody had read the evidence. We could just follow the newspapers and piece together any information we could obtain to find out what it was all about. I tried to get a typed copy of the evidence. It was not in the Library. It was not printed, but since that time it has been printed. The right hon. Gentleman told us that if we had only read his evidence we should have a very different opinion from that we held then. Well, I have read the evidence, and while I pay my tribute to the extreme ability of the representatives of the Board of Trade who put that evidence forward, I must say that it reveals such a state of mind that the only inference one can draw is that, if this is anything like the evidence that is to be given by Government Departments, the Government wishes as far as it can to torpedo the Commission and to get it to arrive at a conclusion which will result in doing nothing for the Special Areas.
The representatives of the Board of Trade said that the evidence that they gave was given on purely economic grounds. There are many economic factors that they do not seem to take into consideration. For instance, one of the points with which they dealt was the availability of labour, and they seemed


to think that industry had come to this part of the country because there was labour available. Actually that is one of the points put in the report; they actually say that they came to Slough because there was labour available. For years there has been a lack of labour in Slough, and the Ministry of Labour has actually fixed up a training centre which deals with about 1,000 men a year to supply the needs of the people in Slough as well as other areas. That statement is on a par with many others made about the economic reasons for employers coming to London.
I have been drilled, as have many of my hon. Friends, in the pros and cons of the costs of industry and, since we were young we have had to face the strict economic factors in one of the grimmest industries of the country so far as costs are concerned. We are not likely to treat these matters lightly. I have always felt extremely sarcastic when people have talked to me about employers' economic reasons for coming here and establishing works. Only last night the gentleman who has been appointed to look after the trading estates in the north of England made a speech in Manchester. Would the House believe that he told a Manchester audience of business men that in a great many cases employers and business men come to London not for business reasons but because their wives want to come to London? Is that not a fact? Why should the representatives of the Board of Trade try to evade conclusions drawn from the commonly known knowledge that family concerns and issues are in many cases regarded as of greater importance than the concerns of the community or of the business?
I will tell the Board of Trade representatives something. If we in the north of England and in Wales and other Special Areas had taken the line of opposition to transference, many of these businesses would not have come to London so easily, because they would not have been able to get labour. They would have had to whistle for labour if it had not been for transference on a big scale. The Special Commissioner said in his last report—the Board of Trade ought to have a look at it—that there was such a thing as a Government subsidy attracting employers to this part of the country. He said:

It may be said that, however good it may be as a temporary alleviation of unemployment, the transfer of workers, and particularly of juveniles, to London, their training allowances and after-care form in effect a subsidy to London industry, borne very largely by the rest of the country.
There is no reference to that kind of commonly known knowledge in the Board of Trade memorandum of evidence submitted to the Commission.
I do not want to go into the question of the areas now, and all I need do is to ask hon. Members to get a copy of the evidence from the Stationery Office. They will see that members of the Commission turned the representatives of the Board of Trade inside out. They blocked them at every turn. It was one of the most pathetic examples of evidence given before a Commission that I have ever read. On the samples of evidence that have been before us, we think we are well entitled to say that the Government were trying to stop any real action which might result in the diversion of industry and in applying principles of location. The chairman has made reference to this, and has pointed out that the Commission's business is to consider
what social, economic or strategical disadvantages arise from the concentration of industries or industrial population in large towns or in particular areas of the country.
The "Times" comment upon that statement was—and I ask hon. Members to notice this:
It is not going beyond the facts to say that in respect of certain areas the Commission has to pronounce a sentence of economic life or death.
That is no less than the actual truth of this question. It is also true that certain illustrations of concentration were used in the evidence. We say—and I think rightly—that no evidence was given to the Commission that was not already in the possession of the Government and accessible before it was given. When it comes to questions of concentration of industry from a strategic point of view, the statements made by Sir Malcolm Stewart in his third report are even more striking and pointed than the evidence given by the Board of Trade. We are not raising this issue merely as a Special Areas question. We agree with the chairman that that is only part of the whole subject on which they have to report. Our contention is that the Special Areas, the conditions, the facts and the method of treatmen are so obvious and so well known


that they should never have been the concern of the Commission that is sitting at the present time.
Another issue that might well be borne in mind in considering the question is that this is not only an economic question. Whole masses of people are being brought from other parts of the country. Their kind of life has been broken up, and they have been established in a new place in which there is no corporate life. This matter affects the whole morale of the people and, if I may use the term, their spiritual outlook. Great changes have taken place in London. I think it was Sir Malcolm Stewart who said that two kinds of movement are going on. There is the movement from the inner part of London to the outer, and the movement from other parts of the country to the outer ring, where the two types of population are meeting. London is undergoing change. In those parts of the country from which some of us come, whole communities are being broken up where there was a common life, schools, houses and the rest of the things that are necessary to supply the needs of the community.
We regret that the Government, having neglected for years the condition of great masses of the people in different parts of the country, but having at last been driven by public opinion to establish a Commission, should themselves attempt to block and to divert it by the evidence which was given. We agree with the chairman. We do not say that the Special Areas form the major question, but we know that they are a symptom of the

general economic condition of the country. After some 10 years of this experience we had, yesterday, a report that there is an increase of 109,000 in the unemployment figures. I see it stated that the increase is partly seasonal, but, as a matter of fact, it is not. It is the greatest warning that could be given, and it looks as though the time that has been lost will simply have the effect of leaving the Special Area people in a worse condition.

Therefore, the neglect of the Special Areas, the perpetual investigations, the crying out of the Commissioners for action and the appointing of the Commission, have simply brought us round on this cycle of unemployment to the point at which conditions are going to be worse. Our last state will probably be worse than the first. The Government can at least have the satisfaction, and so can those hon. Members who vote against our Motion, of knowing that the Commission and the Commissioners have been the means merely of delaying rather than of dealing with a very grave and important human question. So we ask the House to vote for the Motion. We shall at least vote for it in the clear knowledge that it actually and accurately fits the situation and states the facts as they are at present.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 124; Noes, 202.

Division No. 45.]
AYES.
[7.30 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Hayday, A.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)


Adamson, W. M.
Dobbie, W.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)


Banfield, J. W.
Ede, J. C.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)


Barr, J.
Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Hollins, A.


Batey, J.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Jagger, J.


Bellenger, F. J.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)


Benson, G.
Foot, D. M.
Kelly, W. T.


Bevan, A.
Gallacher, W.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon T.


Broad, F. A.
Garro Jones, G. M.
Kirby, B. V.


Bromfield, W.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Kirkwood, D.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Lathan, G.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Lawson, J. J.


Buchanan, G.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Leach, W.


Burke, W. A.
Grenfell, D. R.
Lee, F.


Cape, T.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Leonard, W.


Cassells, T.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Leslie, J. R.


Charleton, H. C.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Lunn, W.


Chater, D.
Graves, T. E.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)


Cluse, W. S.
Hall, G. H. (Abardare)
McEntee, V. La T.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
McGhee, H. G.


Cocks, F. S.
Hardie, Agnes
Maclean, N.


Cove, W. G.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Mainwaring, W. H.


Daggar, G.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Mander, G. le M.




Marshall, F.
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)
Thurtle, E.


Mathers, G.
Sanders, W. S.
Tinker, J. J.


Maxton, J.
Seely, Sir H. M.
Walkden, A. G.


Messer, F.
Sexton, T. M.
Walker, J.


Milner, Major J,
Shinwell, E.
Watkins, F. C.


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Short, A.
Watson, W. McL.


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Silkin, L.
Welsh, J. C.


Naylor, T. E.
Simpson, F. B.
White, H. Graham


Oliver, G. H.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Owen, Major G.
Smith, E. (Stoke)
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Paling, W.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees. (K'ly)
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Smith, T. (Normanton)
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Price, M. P.
Sorensen, R. W.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Stephen, C.



Ridley, G.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Riley, B.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Lieut.-Commander Fletcher and Mr. Jenkins.


Ritson, J.
Taylor, R. J, (Morpeth)



Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Thorne, W.





NOES.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Ellis, Sir G.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Albery, Sir Irving
Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Elmley, Viscount
Moreing, A. C.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Emery, J. F.
Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)


Aske, Sir R. W.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.


Assheton, R.
Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)


Atholl, Duchess of
Everard, W. L.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Findlay, Sir E.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Balniel, Lord
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Palmer, G. E. H.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Peake, O.


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Gluckstein, L. H.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Goldie, N. B.
Pilkington, R.


Beit, Sir A. L.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Procter, Major H. A.


Bird, Sir R. B.
Granville, E. L.
Radford, E. A.


Boulton, W. W.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Ramsden, Sir E.


Brass, Sir W.
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Rathbone. J. R. (Bodmin)


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Brooklebank, Sir Edmund
Grimston, R. V.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Burghley, Lord
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Butcher, H. W.
Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Butler, R. A.
Harbord, A.
Ross Taylor, W, (Woodbridge)


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Rowlands, G,


Carver, Major W. H.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Royds, Admiral P. M. R.


Cary, R. A.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Hepworth, J.
Russell, Sir Alexander


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Herbert, Major J A. (Monmouth)
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Channon, H.
Higgs, W. F.
Salmon, Sir I.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Salt, E. W.


Clarke, F. E. (Dartford)
Holdsworth, H.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Holmes, J. S.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Savery, Sir Servington


Cobb, Captain E. C, (Preston)
Hopkinson, A.
Shakespeare, G. H.


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Hutchinson, G. C.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gtn)
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Craven-Ellis, W.
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Crooke, J. S.
Lees-Jones, J.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Somerset, T.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Cross, R. H.
Levy, T.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Crossley, A. C.
Lewis, O.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Crowder, J. F. E.
Little, Sir E. Graham-
Storey, S.


Culverwell, C. T.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Davidson, Viscountess
Lloyd, G. W.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Davison, Sir W. H
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Strauss. H. G. (Norwich)


De Chair, S. S.
M'Connell, Sir J.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


De la Bère, R,
McCorquodale, M. S.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton (N'thw'h)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Tate, Mavis C.


Denville, Alfred
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.
McKie, J. H.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Maclay, Hon. J. P.
Touche, G. C.


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Maitland, A.
Train, Sir J.


Duggan, H. J.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Dunglass, Lord
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Eastwood, J. F.
Marsden, Commander A.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Eckersley, P. T.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Turton, R. H,


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)







Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Wayland, Sir W. A
Windser-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)
Wise, A. R.



Williams, C. (Torquay)
Womersley, Sir W. J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Mabane and Mr. Peat.


Question put, and agreed to.

Question proposed, "That the proposed words be there added."

Several hon. Members: rose—

It being after Half-past Seven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

PRESERVATION OF AMENITIES.

Mr. Speaker: With reference to the Motion which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. G. Nicholson), it may be for the convenience of the House if I say that I do not propose to call any of the Amendments which have been put down to that Motion. According to the Rules of the House, if any of those Amendments were moved, the Debate would have to be confined strictly to the subject of the Amendment under discussion, whereas on the Motion itself it will be possible for the discussion to range over the whole field that it covers. Probably in the course of that discussion the points referred to in the Amendments can be raised and discussed.

7.39 p.m.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: I beg to move,
That this House, recognising the importance of the preservation of amenities, wishes to call attention to the desirability of strengthening the Advertisements Regulation Acts and to the anxiety that exists with respect to the activities of the Forestry Commission in the Lake District and other areas of great natural beauty.
In moving this Motion I should like to say quite clearly that it is a double-barrelled Motion. It deals with two distinct subjects, and I suggest that, if both of these subjects are to be dealt with as they should be, it would be desirable that hon. Members should restrict the length of their speeches to somewhat narrow limits. I shall try to do that myself, and I would ask hon. Members to speak as shortly as possible, in order that, in particular, the Forestry Commission may have a fair run in the course of the Debate. I need hardly remind hon. Members that the Forestry Commission never seems to have a chance of explaining its work to the House.
I make no apology for introducing the general subject of amenities. It is an exceedingly important subject. On the other hand, it would be ridiculous to say

that it is as urgent or as immediately important to the people in general as the questions of food, housing, health or employment. Of course, it is not. But, when one considers that the word "amenity" is given in the dictionary as meaning pleasantness, and when one remembers that the movement in favour of the preservation of amenities is a movement in favour of preserving the pleasant side of life, of preserving the country background of what is predominantly an urban population, I hope no one will feel that I am wasting the time of the House in calling attention to two comparatively restricted and definite points relating to the preservation of amenities.
Some apology to hon. Members for the very limited scope of my Motion is, however, necessary. The limitation is due to the fact that I hold an exceedingly humble honorary post in the Ministry of Health, being Parliamentary Private Secretary to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. That means, of course, that I cannot raise any questions which are dealt with by the Department with which I am connected. I should, of course, have liked to raise the general question of our policy towards amenities, but that would be out of order, and I will content myself with leaving this thought with hon. Members; Amenities are dealt with by almost every Government Department—by the Ministry of Health, the Home Office, the Office of Works, the Forestry Commission, the Ministry of Agriculture, the Fine Arts Commission, and, finally on occasion even the Defence Departments have to decide questions of amenities. I would ask the House whether the time has not come when we should have a co-ordinated policy for dealing with amenities and a co ordinating body to work out that policy. I wish to leave that thought with hon. Members and pass on to the actual Motion.
My short experience of politics has taught me that, if one wants to get anything done in this House, it is better to concentrate on definite points, rather than to range vaguely over a wide field, and from that point of view it is possible that the limited scope of my Motion may prove to be a blessing in disguise. I have said that it is a double-barrelled Motion, and


I propose to fire the first barrel at my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department. It is fired more in love than in enmity, and I hope my hon. Friend will reciprocate. The problem is that of the regulation of advertisements. I think it is generally agreed that it is a problem. Anybody can see that by going for a walk or a drive throughout the country. On the other hand, it is a problem which it is very easy to get hysterical over and to exaggerate. I do not for a moment say that every comer of the country is ruined by unsightly advertisements. I am very anxious to deal with this problem with moderation, and not to be guilty of over statement. Nor am I at all anxious to be thought to have a quarrel with the big advertisers. I have not. I think that, like the majority of people, they are reasonable, and that they have an affection and regard and consideration for the amenities of the countryside. The only difference between us is one of method.
I am not against advertisements in their proper place; in fact, I like a good row of gaily coloured posters. They add colour to a drab civilisation; they constitute the poor man's picture gallery; and I am certain that our life would be much the poorer without the large hoardings. Apart from that, they perform a valuable service to trade and industry, and to every individual, down to the humblest housewife, who buys her necessities according to their recommendations. This subject can only be settled by agreement and willingness to meet the other side, on the part of both parties. I claim that what I am suggesting would be helpful to the public-spirited advertiser who does not put up an advertisement in a good site if he thinks it will spoil the amenities and then sometimes somebody else comes along and puts up an advertisement on the same site, with the result that both the amenities and the good advertiser suffer. There are two Acts which deal with this question—the Acts of 1907 and 1927. They were not contentious Measures. So far as I can discover there were no Divisions on them in this House: in fact, on the Act of 1907, the House was nearly counted out. The law works through local authorities, that is, county councils, borough councils and urban districts with population of over 10,000, and the sole method of procedure

is by by-law. A standard type of by-law has been drawn up by the Home Office for
regulating, restricting, or preventing the exhibition of advertisements so as to disfigure or injuriously affect

(a) the natural beauty of the landscape or the view of rural scenery from a highway, railway, or public place;
(b) the amenities of a village in a Rural District;
(c) the amenities of public parks or pleasure promenades or of historic or public buildings or of places frequented by the public for their beauty or histiric interest."
By-laws may also be made for:
(d) the regulation and control of advertisement hoardings exceeding 12 feet in height.
At first sight, these sound fine, comprehensive powers to confer on local authorities, but in actual practice they have been found inadequate, owing to the difficulty of securing proper enforcement and owing to the limitation placed on the scope of the by-laws. Consider how a county council—and all the county councils have made by laws—would enforce them when attention is drawn to what is considered an unsightly advertisement. They try to reach agreement with the advertiser. If he is not sufficiently enlightened to take down the advertisement, the council's only recourse is to prosecute him in a summary court. This means criminal proceedings. This is cumbersome, proof is difficult, and the delay is considerable. The local authority has no preventive power and no power to guard against a repetition of the offence on the same site by another advertiser, or by the same advertiser. This is the considered opinion of the county councils, which are asking for new powers and further legislation. In boroughs and urban districts, there is provision that the councils should make a definite schedule of the places they propose to protect when drawing up their by-laws. The effect has not been altogether good. Outside these scheduled areas, built-up areas are absolutely untouched by these Acts, except for hoardings over 12 feet in height, and advertisements not attached to hoardings, such as those on gable ends, are not dealt with at all. There is no power to protect residential or commercial areas, for example, the High Streets of country towns, than which nothing is more typically national or more beautiful—and no by-law ever devised can deal with the disfigurement of a whole street.
I claim that the situation is fundamentally unsatisfactory for two reasons. I think permissive powers are always unsatisfactory. I regret that so much of our legislation is permissive. Secondly, when permissive powers are inadequate and difficult to enforce, the situation is doubly unsatisfactory. The hon. Member for Elland (Mr. Levy) has an Amendment on the Paper. I am sure he and his hon. Friends will make a great point of the fact that urban and district councils have only partially adopted the power given them to make by-laws. That proves to me quite as much that the by-law powers are unsatisfactory as that there is not sufficient keenness on the part of the councils. The fact is that the Association of Municipal Corporations has definitely requested new legislation, and they say that it is the actual procedure laid down and the powers given under these Acts which are unsatisfactory. It does not prove their lack of interest. Constantly, in private Bills, extensive powers are sought to deal with this problem of advertising, and resisted, perhaps rightly, by hon. Members, again proving that local authorities are not satisfied with the present state of the law.
Various suggestions have been made for dealing with the question: for instance, the licensing of sites as suitable for advertisements. That would be a very drastic way of dealing with the situation. It would excite the strongest opposition from advertising interests, would lead to all sorts of complications among local authorities and in the towns themselves, and would certainly be highly contentious in this House. I am not prepared to advocate the licensing system without the fullest possible inquiry, which I have, of course, not been able to make. My present instinct is against it. My suggestion is in the nature of a compromise. I want to get away from the by-law procedure, and also to avoid the licensing system. I would give all local authorities statutory powers to require the removal of an offending advertisement, with, of course, the right of appeal to the courts on the part of the advertiser. That would include the right of the intended advertiser to go to the local authority in advance and apply for their approval for putting up an advertisement, also with the right of appeal.
That would be an excellent solution, provided that the tribunal to which appeal may be made is the right one. There I find difficulty. I have come to the conclusion that the ordinary magistrates' bench is the best, because advertising interests are convinced that the local bench will always go against them, and local authorities are convinced that it will always go against them. When they both regard it as profoundly unsatisfactory—although I admit the weakness of ray argument—I feel it is possible that that is the best tribunal. The new Bill which I would like to see would deal with advertising from the air—a terrible thing—and advertising from the sea. In certain seaside resorts, at nights, an illuminated vessel or barge is towed along, advertising various products with the most brilliant illuminated signs. There must be a limit to that. There is also the question of neon signs. What about the situation when advertisements along a highway are a definite distraction to drivers? That must be dealt with.
I urge my hon. Friend who is going to reply for the Government to give sympathetic consideration to the idea of introducing legislation of this sort. There is one other point. Some believe that the Town and Country Planning Act is the best way to deal with this—the point is mentioned in the Amendment. I would only say this: It is generally agreed, by those best qualified to say, that there will be a tremendous amount of delay before advertising can be dealt with under that Act. A scheme has to be adopted as a whole or not at all. Advertisements cannot be dealt with separately. This is bound to mean delay. The question will have to be dealt with by fresh legislation or not at all. I realise that this matter is contentious. I appeal to the advertisers to make an effort to deal with it themselves. I should be only too anxious to meet them on every possible point if I were in the position of the Government, and I hope the Government will do the same. I urge my hon. Friend, when he replies, to say that the Government will introduce legislation of some sort next session. Finally, I would urge him to call a conference oh which the advertising interests, amenity societies, local authorities and the ordinary man-in-the-street will be represented. I leave it to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich (Mr. H. Strauss) to follow me


on this subject. He is chairman of the Scapa Society.
I wish to fire my other barrel in the direction of the Forestry Commission, and to call attention to the anxiety that exists. I am not saying that that anxiety is, or is not, justified, but I am calling attention to a state of affairs which is harmful to the Forestry Commissioners and to the peace of mind of many people in this country. I am not moving a vote of censure on the Forestry Commissioners. I wish to give them an opportunity of dispelling the anxiety which exists, and of saying something about their activities, because they never seem to get a chance of displaying their eloquence or extolling their achievements. I do not pose as an expert. I am an ordinary person, bred in the country, a lover of trees, even possessing a sort of complex for planting trees in every available spot. Of coarse I have only been able to make a cursory survey of the subject. But I have reached the conclusion that, within their limitations, partly inherent and partly self-imposed, the Commissioners have shown themselves increasingly conciliatory. I would go further and say that if you balance the successes and achievements of the Commissioners against their failures and shortcomings, I say without hesitation that they are entitled to the congratulations of this House. I say quite definitely, before I make any criticism, that, in fact, on the whole, by and large, the Commissioners are "a good thing within their limitations."
Their limitations are very severe. Firstly, there is the limitation of their terms of reference in the Act of 1919 which set them up. The terms of reference imposed on them are purely economic. Section 3 does not say a word about preserving the beauties of the landscape or anything of that sort, and in another section directions are given for the composition of consultation committees. You have the representation of all the economic interests and of the purely afforestation interests, but there is no representation for the people who are interested in amenities. That is a very severe restriction. Then they are limited severely on the financial side. They are limited to the planting of conifers, as land which is suitable for hard woods is generally more expensive, and they are more

or less buying up poor land that will only grow conifers. Then the Commission are not empowered by Parliament to look at any question from the broad point of view of national interest. They are bound by their terms of reference to the narrowest possible economic standpoint. Finally, in actual fact is has been found that there is little opportunity for parliamentary control and criticism. I do not think that question and answer are very useful in arriving anywhere at all, and I do not think that either of the Opposition parties are likely to call for the Forestry Vote on any Supply day when there is bigger game to be had.
Then there are what I might call the self-imposed limitations of the Commissioners. I hope that the Commissioners will not think that I am criticising them unduly, but many people have the impression that the Commissioners think that the plantations of conifers are automatic additions to the beauties of the landscape. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland)—I am sorry that he is not in his place—has a positive passion for conifers. The Commissioners do not appear fully to realise the strength of local feeling or the extent of local anxiety when plantations begin to spring up. Finally, they do not seem to realise that, on the amenity question, they are face to face with a very big problem indeed. It is not a question of a series of particular local problems that can be dealt with piecemeal by negotiation with local societies, or even with the Council for the Preservation of Rural England. Looked at in that way, problems and anxieties are bound to arise, and the Commissioners are bound to feel resentment whenever they feel that they are misunderstood, and that bad atmosphere, I regret to say, is sure to be created if these problems are looked at in a piece meal way. I take one example—yesterday's questions and answers. When my hon. and gallant Friend replied, I had the impression that he was a man full of good intentions, feeling that his good intentions were not understood, and suspecting every question as being either an attack or a leg-pull. I do not think that that is a satisfactory state of affairs. I do not think that the Commissioners are rightly understood by the public. I am sure that it is the fault of both sides, but, above all, of the Commissioners' terms of


reference. I will now take definite examples, beginning with the Lake District. I want to relieve the minds of hon. Members at once by stating that I am not going to quote Wordsworth, though I feel sorely tempted to do so. The best quotation I have found on the Lake District is that of Ruskin when he said:
The hills are not wooded enough to be beautiful or high enough to be sublime.
I think the reflection is upon Ruskin rather than upon the Lake District. After much anxiety and many negotiations and a great deal of trouble in all quarters, a solution of the Lake District problem has been arrived at, and the Forestry Commission have said that they will not try to acquire an area of about 300 square miles in the middle of the Lake District for planting purposes. I welcome that sincerely. It is a most satisfactory solution and reflects great credit upon the Forestry Commission. But it is not right—and I am not blaming anybody for this—that it should be looked at as a concession. Their terms of reference should prevent a question of that sort from cropping up in an area like the Lake District.
I ask for one concession. I should like the Commissioners to do their best—I will not even say promise—not to buy any more of the shaded area in Eskdale and Duddondale. I found a sonnet by Wordsworth about the Duddon which I could quote with great effect but by my great self-denial I refrain from doing so. I appreciate very much what the Commission have already done on their land in that region and the way they have planted it, and especially the planting of beeches. I humbly congratulate the Commissioners on the way in which they intend to deal with Grisedale. It is not a very big area. They are planting the upper lands and moorlands and leaving the low meadow lands and the farms untouched. I take another case, that of the area around Thetford, in Norfolk, which is said to be the one part of the British Isles where the condition of the Russian Steppes are reproduced. I understand that a satisfactory solution has been arrived at there which will largely result in the creation of a great forest countryside, in which will be reserved broad natural open spaces whose value will be emphasised by the surrounding forest. Again, I congratu-

late the Commissioners upon that solution, but I would point out that both these cases were treated separately and arrived at after separate negotiations with many local and central societies. I do not think that that is the way these things should be done.
I speak as a former Northumberland Member, coming of Northumberland and Cumberland stock. The intentions of the Commissioners may be good or they may be bad in Northumberland, but the general public has no knowledge of them, and that is where the trouble is. As a result, anxiety is deep and widespread. Who knows the future of Redesdale and North Tyne? In both these cases the head waters have been planted already. Who knows the fate of the Wall? I feel exceedingly strongly on the question of the Roman Wall, where you have the most magnificent ancient monument in this country and the most magnificent countryside the world can show. A question was asked in this House yester day. My right hon. and gallant Friend gave an answer which disturbed me considerably. I want to know where we stand with regard to the Wall. I wish to call attention to his final reply which he thought was very satisfactory. He was asked whether the Commission judge for themselves the amenities of the Roman Wall and he replied:
All such matters are considered by a Joint Committee of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England and of the Commissioners."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th December, 1937; col. 197, Vol. 330.]
I will say later why I think that that is an unsatisfactory reply. In general, I ask the Commissioners what is to be the fate of the moors of Northumberland and Cumberland? Apart entirely from any personal point, we have to consider the public anxiety, and that anxiety is a bad thing in itself and should be set at rest, and I ask the Commissioners to do it.
My suggestions are these. I want the Commission to realise that the problem cannot be dealt with by the Joint Council of the C.P.R.E., however adequate it may be. The question of time and business alone prevents that. We cannot expect great experts to give up enough of their time to a matter which is really a whole-time job. Though I appreciate the activities of the Commissioners in setting up that Joint Council, I do not feel that it is going to be satisfactory, because men


who are eminent enough to be qualified to plan England from the forest point of view are much sought after in their own businesses and occupations, and you cannot expect them to give up the requisite time. I maintain that some standing machinery is essential. Then I should like to see a really qualified land consultant on the Forestry Commission, and a report made by the Commission on other countries which are dealing with this sort of problem, especially Germany. That is my first suggestion.
My second suggestion is the most important one. A plan of England is essential showing the areas of natural or historic landscape beauty which must not be disturbed, and areas suitable for afforestation. If that were done on a large enough scale, it would show the areas suitable for afforestation in which the Commissioners might consider the purchase of land. That is the only possible way in which anxiety, such as is felt in Northumberland, can be allayed. I think that people would rather know the worst about their favourite areas than be in a state of constant anxiety. Thirdly, I think that the Commission has to reach a decision on the question of the proportions of conifers and hardwoods. There are magnificent potentialities, but I would remind the Commission that the problem cannot be solved satisfactorily by putting fringes of hard woods on the edges of coniferous plantations. The Commission ought to be allowed by their terms of reference to consider their work from the broadest point of view of the national interest treated as a whole. If that would mean revised terms of reference, then I would ask for revised terms of reference.
I will conclude a very long and rather boring speech by a short homily addressed both to the Commissioners and to the public. One of the causes of the present confusion is that our idea of beauty in the landscape is accepted beauty, that is, that to which we are accustomed. The accustomed landscape is made up of hard wood plantations and forests planted mainly for economic reasons. The most beautiful woods in this country were planted for economic reasons. The new afforestation is also planted for economic reasons, but of a different kind. There is only one way out, and that is the acceptance of the

principle that there can be beauty—perhaps a different sort of beauty—no less in the new landscape. It is a different orientation of our ideas, and if the Commissioners are empowered to proceed on a large enough scale, the potentialities are magnificent. Side by side with this there must be planting of areas beforehand—in short, a long distance policy. It is that for which I ask as a result of this Debate.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. H. Strauss: I beg to second the Motion so ably moved by my hon. Friend. The Motion is in two parts, and since I am the chairman of the Scapa Society, which was responsible for the two existing Advertisement (Regulation) Acts, it will be my duty to devote most of my time to the first part of the Resolution. I should like to say at the outset that I do not regard that as the more important. It is clear that whatever mistakes we may make about advertisements, and we may be very foolish about them, some generation after us, which may be wiser, will be able to remove the blot that we leave and no irreparable damage will have been done; but if those who oppose some of the activities of the Forestry Commission are right, then there is a danger that some quite irreparable damage may be done to some of the fairest of our scenery; a damage that can hardly be over-estimated.
I am not going to attack the Forestry Commission. I would not hesitate to do so if I thought they deserved it, but I do not. The Commissioners do not consider certain things because the Statute does not instruct and perhaps does not permit them to do so. If there is a fault in what they do, somebody else is responsible for not giving them power to take into consideration those things which in the national interests they ought to take into consideration. Let me make a very simple point on which I think the whole House will be agreed. We know from the White Paper on Afforestation in the Lake District, which was published last year, and from a letter in the "Times" of the 28th September last year, signed by Mr. Lascelles Abercrombie and others, including my Noble Friend the hon. Member for the Lonsdale Division (Lord Balniel), who I hope will speak later, that in the view of those who love the Lake


District and of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, what is being done to-day by the Forestry Commission is disastrous to the beauty of those parts. Take Eskdale. We know the limits of their disagreement with the Forestry Commission in regard to the Lake District. They want a further area included in that which is to be immune, and they hold that what is now being done by the Forestry Commission is disastrous. That is one fact. A further fact is that the Forestry Commission is doing it and is going to continue to do it.
There is, therefore, one matter on which I think there will be universal agreement, and that is that it ought to be the duty of someone to say whether these fears for the Lake District are right or wrong. It ought to be the duty of someone to ask: "Is it in the national interest that a conifer forest shall be placed in Eskdale?" That question is not being asked. The Forestry Commission say, quite rightly, that they have no authority to ask it, and they are not even allowed to ask it. Their duty is laid down in various Statutes. Let me quote as an example Section 3 of the Forestry Act, 1919:
The Commissioners shall be charged with the general duty of promoting the interests of forestry, the development of afforestation, and the production and supply of timber, in the United Kingdom.
There is no mention of beauty or amenities. That is not only the view that I take of the duty of the Forestry Commissioners from looking at the Statute; it is quite clear that it is the view that the Commissioners take themselves. Here is a quotation from a letter in the "Spectator" last week by the right hon. Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland). In the last paragraph he says that they are a body
whose primary duty is to grow timber, and not to preserve England's beauty.

Mr. Marshall: Is it stated in the Act with regard to the planting of trees that they shall plant conifers and only conifers?

Mr. Strauss: I think not. That detailed question can be more properly answered by the hon. and gallant Member, who will later deal with the matter from the point of view of the Forestry Commission. It is a very important point that the hon.

Member has raised. I would point out the anxiety that so many of us feel, and I cannot do better than quote Professor Trevelyan, whose right to speak on this subject is acknowledged in every quarter of the House. He points out, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, that once it paid best to plant hardwoods. To-day it often pays best to plant conifers. At least the return is quicker. Further—and this is a matter of considerable interest to the Lake District—in certain places it is not possible to plant anything else. My hon. Friend, who will speak as an expert, will confirm that. There are certain places where it is conifers or nothing. Professor Trevelyan points out that as a result of the fact that hardwoods are not being planted and conifers are being planted the beauty of Britain will be halved in the next 100 years.
I have said that the one question which must be asked in the national interest is not being asked. It cannot be asked by the Forestry Commission because they are told what their duty is, and that is to grow timber. It is being asked by the Council for the Preservation of Rural England and the Friends of the Lake District, and they say that what is being done is contrary to the national interest, but they have no statutory power whatsoever to make their feeling effective. My hon. Friend said that they had come to a perfectly friendly agreement as to a great central part of the Lake District, but their differences are set out in the White Paper.
It is the duty of the Government to make up their minds whether this planting of conifers in those parts of the Lake District from which the Friends of the Lake District would have them excluded, is or is not in the national interest. What is wanted is that the Government should make up their minds on this subject, and act accordingly. What do the Government do when these differences appear? The differences were set out in the Debate in another place on the 1st April last year, but the Secretary of State for India, who replied, did not give his view as to whether it was or was not in the national interest to do what is being done. He pointed out that the Joint Committee was in existence and suggested that they should come to some sort of compromise; but, as we know from the White Paper, they cannot compromise. The Forestry


Commission, perfectly honestly and perfectly in accordance with their duty, consider it to be incumbent upon them to plant these trees which they are planting in the Lake District, and equally clearly those who are concerned with the amenities think it their duty to point out that this is contrary to the national interest.
I submit in all seriousness that it is time the question was asked by and answered by the Government, and when they answer it I feel sure that they can answer it only in a way that will preserve the Lake District inviolate for all time. In our modern civilisation the need for solitude and the recreation of the Spirit does not grow less. The more urban we become the more we need such glories as the Lake District. The Government have entered upon a national health campaign. Few things would promote the national health more than the preservation inviolate of the Lake District and other glories of our scenery.
Let me proceed to the other part of the Motion, the question of advertisement regulation. In the first place, let me say clearly that, like my hon. Friend who preceded me, I am certainly not hostile to the commercial interests that put up posters. Indeed, few commercial arts have made greater progress in recent years than the poster art, and it is totally unnecessary, if they are properly used, that outdoor advertisments should injure amenities. On the contrary, if they are in their proper place in a town they may be aesthetically desirable. It is, however, equally true that abuses of advertising can injure the aspect of towns and mar their beauty, and destroy the rural scene.
It is, I agree, a very curious fact that while we are so eager to prevent accidents on our roads we should permit so much advertising on the sides of our principal roads, the sole purpose of which is to divert the attention of those who use the highway to the legend in these advertisements. These facts and the abuses of advertising are admitted by leading members of the poster industry, with whom I am glad to say the Scapa Society has enjoyed very good relations, which it will be the aim of the society and of myself as chairman to continue. I am not going to condemn the whole of the trade nor to say for one moment that the existing Statutes are wholly useless. It would be

a foolish thing to do, and it is not the opinion of the Scapa Society. That they are not useless will be recognised by anybody who has travelled to any extent in foreign countries. They will know that while there are countries which perhaps control this matter more successfully than we do, there are many countries which do it a great deal worse. Those who know the New England States, Connecticut for example, will know that a great deal of the most beautiful countryside is regarded simply as a frame for enormous advertisements, which blot out the countryside altogether. I recently drove from Brussels to Antwerp and continuously on both sides of the road there were enormous advertisements which did not allow you to see any country at all on one side or the other during the whole journey. I am glad that such a thing is rare in this country, although some hon. Members may be aware that we have a touch of it on the Staines Road.
While I am not making a universal attack on the whole industry, and while I do not say that the Acts are useless, I must in honesty to the House say that it has been the experience of the Scapa Society for many years that the existing legislation is insufficient. That is their experience, and my hon. Friend in seeking to strengthen the legislation is quite right. It is also the experience of local authorities. Westmorland and 31 other county councils have already expressed themselves strongly in favour of strengthening the law. A similar conclusion has been reached by the Association of Municipal Corporations, and on 6th July this year a meeting took place of the main Associations of Local Authorities and representatives of the Scapa Society at which the hon. and gallant Member for Tiverton (Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte) presided, and passed a Resolution that:
This conference is of the opinion that further powers for controlling and restricting the exhibition of advertisements are desirable"—
And they set up a special committee. I have no doubt that the Under-Secretary of State will take into consideration not only any matters which are raised in the Debate, but also any conclusions which the Joint Committee of the local authorities and the Scapa Society may hereafter put forward. There is an Amendment on the Paper which I understand will not be called but which I must deal with to the


extent that it shows possible grounds of opposition to the present Motion. It suggests that further use should be made of existing powers. It is important to point out that the demand for reform comes principally from those who are already using the existing powers as far as they can possibly be used, and if municipal authorities in some cases have not made by-laws it may be due to the fact that such by-laws are insufficient.
The faults are both in the scope of the Statutes—the limited list of amenities which are protected—and also in the method of control. It may be for the convenience of the House if I first deal with the faults of existing Statutes, confining myself to the two Advertisement Regulation Statutes mentioned in the Motion and then in fairness state what difference is made by the powers under the Town and Country Planning Act.
The main omissions from the amenities which can be protected at all under existing powers are these. It is impossible to protect villages in urban areas at all. That is an important omission. It is quite impossible to protect roads and streets in towns, unless they fall within the very limited provisions of the Acts, which protect public parks and promenades, or public buildings or monuments or places of historic interest. The general amenities of a town cannot be protected under the Acts at all. There is no protection of residential areas as such. There is no protection of the seascape. A number of complaints have been received by the Scapa Society on this subject, of glaring advertisements on vessels off the shore, and the number is rapidly growing. It is quite obvious that this is a serious omission. If you protect the landscape I think hon. Members will agree that you should protect the view from the coasts.
I cordially agree with what has been said by my hon. Friend as to the air. I do not think any piece of legislation could be brought in by the Government which would be more popular than the prohibition of air advertising. The machine engaged on air advertising is an extra nuisance, for this reason. An aeroplane is bound at present to be a nuisance until it has attained a considerable height, and these advertising machines fly low in order that their streamers may be visible. Secondly, they deliberately use old and noisy engines in order that the public shall look up and see what it is

that they are advertising. Incredible as it may appear, the Air Ministry has no power to do anything in this matter unless it can bring it within the scope of the safety regulations. That is a matter which in any future legislation on the subject should be considered.
The other fault is the method of enforcement of the existing law. The fact that the procedure is by by-law and that offences against them must be dealt with by criminal prosecution is unsatisfactory to the local authorities, unsatisfactory to the advertisers, and unsatisfactory to the general public. Since nothing can be done in advance to stop offensive advertisements being set up, local authorities cannot prevent it, nor can the exhibitor ascertain whether what he has in mind is lawful or not. What is the result? The surveyor to the county council cannot possibly keep pace with the number of advertisements which are going up. The whole system is wasteful in time and in money. If a contravention is alleged, the exhibitor has to face a criminal charge. Last, but by no means least, the public has frequently to endure the offending advertisement for a year or more, even in cases where ultimately a prosecution is successful.
It may be said in the Debate that, although all this may be true about the two existing Statutes, with which my hon. Friend dealt, a difference is made under Section 47 of the Town and Country Planning Act. It may be urged that under that Section, the responsible authority can exercise control over advertisements on land specified in the scheme as protected in respect of advertisements. It may be asked why cannot that be relied upon to remove all our existing difficulties. I am not frightened of the Home Office taking that view. Nobody who has looked into the problem can take that view.
In addition to the points made by my hon. Friend, let me give four points showing why that Act cannot wholly meet the defects to which I have called attention. First of all, there is the objection in point of time. Any protection under the Town and Country Planning Act operates only from the time the scheme comes into force. We are very much concerned with advertisements in rural areas, and a great many rural district councils have not yet passed resolutions to start town planning. Obviously, the objection in point of time


to relying upon that is overwhelming. Secondly, there is the objection in point of space. The protection applies only to land within the area of the scheme, and in the case of many planning authorities that include country towns, while their planning scheme deals with the development of the new area round their town, it does not deal with the old built-up area in the middle. That old built-up area will be wholly unprotected in these cases unless we have other legislation than the Town and Country Planning Act.
The third point, which I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department to bear in mind in considering any new legislation, is this: the phrase in the Town and Country Planning Act which enables an authority to take proceedings to get an advertisement removed makes it incumbent upon it to prove that the advertisement "seriously injures" the amenity of the protected land. The words in the Advertisements Regulation Acts are "disfigure or injuriously affect." Those of us who know the difficulty of securing a conviction in the case of the milder words "disfigure or injuriously affect," will be slow before we rely wholly upon an Act which places on the complainant the apparently graver onus of proof involved in the words "seriously injures."
Fourthly—and this is a very important point. I think, for those who represent or are concerned with rural areas—if the by-laws under the Acts cease to apply where the land is protected under the Town and Country Planning Act, the effect in rural areas will be to transfer control from the county councils to the district councils. I am bound to say that the experience of the Scapa Society is that that is not a desirable change. The county councils have in many cases done admirable work in this matter and they are better equipped with the appropriate officers for enforcement.
I think the House may well think that the fact that the power of local authorities in one case concerns the Home Office and in the other the Ministry of Health, may render it desirable that when there is amending legislation one Ministry, and one Ministry alone, should be concerned with the whole subject in this House.
On the form that the new legislation should take, I am very much interested

in the ingenious plan put forward by my hon. Friend who moved the Motion. In effect, it consists of two powers, first, the power given to the local authority to require the removal of an offending advertisement, subject to a right of appeal to the courts, and, secondly, if the advertiser wishes, the power for the advertiser to go to the authority in advance and ask for its approval before he puts up the advertisement. Here, too, in the event of refusal, the applicant would have the right of appeal. Let me say at once that I think that is a very interesting proposal which holds out some hope of a simple scheme of control applying throughout England, to town and country alike, and avoiding many of the existing difficulties.
But I am bound to add one caution. In the second part of the proposal, that which concerns the advertiser asking in advance for permission to erect an advertisement, if the result of the application being granted is that the matter is taken entirely away from the possibility of being considered by any court at any time, it is necessary, in my submission, not only that the advertiser should have a right of appeal, if permission is refused, but that there should be a limited right of appeal if permission is granted. I suggest to the authorities at the Home Office, for their consideration, that such an appeal should be granted at least to the owner or occupier of land adjoining or in the neighbourhood of the site, and, secondly, to a duly appointed officer of certain associations concerned with the protection of amenities such as the Council for the Preservation of Rural England and the Scapa Society. I do not believe in giving local authorities, in matters of amenities, a jurisdiction from which there is no appeal.
I thank the House for its great patience is listening to my remarks on a matter which is bound to be a little technical, and I would urge upon the Minister who is to reply that he should, in framing the necessary legislation, bear in mind the points which have been raised and the further points which the Joint Committee of the Associations of Local Authorities and the Scapa Society may put before him.

8.43 p.m.

Mr. Tinker: I wish to compliment the hon. Gentlemen who moved and seconded


the Motion, and also to extend my sympathy to them. Both of them are Parliamentary private secretaries, and I know that the holding of those positions of responsibility may at many times restrict them from "going all out" as they would if they were free. I held such a position on two occasions, but I did not allow that to interfere with my saying what ought to be said on many problems. I hope the hon. Gentlemen will take it from me that it is better to put the Department on one side and to let the House know exactly what they feel on the matter. I wish that the hon. Members had been in a position "to go all out" on this matter, because I believe they would have raised the question which I wanted to raise, but which Mr. Speaker declined to allow me to raise, so that I shall have to deal with it in general Debate.
I agree with the hon. Members that amenities should be preserved as much as possible, but when they were talking I wondered whether their minds ever shifted from the Lake District. It seems to me that it is as well that some of my hon. Friends on these benches who come from industrial districts should intervene in Debates of this kind. When the hon. Members who moved and seconded spoke about advertisements being an eyesore that ought to be removed, my mind went to the industrial advertisements which are to be seen in every industrial centre. I am referring to advertisements of industrial chaos and industrial ruin. I hope that when the House deals with amenities, it will at the same time attempt to do something about that sort of advertisements as well.
On Saturday I assisted at the ceremony of opening pithead baths in Leigh. I had in mind this Motion and was wondering what line the Mover intended to take. I had travelled from my home in St. Helens through Ashton-in-Makerfield and had been struck by the manner in which all that area has been left derelict. On every side are signs of the ruin caused by industry and of the potential ruin which will follow, unless some restriction is applied. One saw great pit heaps and mounds, some burned-out and others still burning, with corresponding depressions filled with water. That is a feature which will probably interest the hon. Member for Elland (Mr. Levy). Indeed one of my hon. Friends suggested that

this matter could be settled, if the hon. Member would arrange to pour some of the water in which he is so interested over the burning pit heaps about which I am concerned.
During the ceremony on Saturday I was reminded of the headway which has been made in providing amenities for mine-workers during the last 20 years. We have seen great improvements, such as the provision of pithead baths, and I think everybody is agreed about the desirability of doing something more for the mineworkers in this and in other respects. But so far no attempt has been made to deal with the eyesore caused by these pit heaps, the removal of which would do so much to make the lives of the colliery workers less disagreeable. We are dealing here with advertisements and with what can be done by the Forestry Commissioners to protect the countryside.
The other aspect of the question to which I have drawn attention is one which should also be tackled when we come to consider the subject as a whole. I heard Sir Frederick Sykes at a Miners' Welfare Conference, over which he presided, expressing the wish that more could be done in the direction of avoiding the formation of slag heaps, which present such a depressing outlook in many of our mining villages. He referred to the fact that in one case recently through the efforts of local people with help from a voluntary social service organisation, a pit heap had been converted into a recreation ground. That, he said, was by no means an isolated instance and in other cases pit heaps had been planted with trees. That is a lesson to the Forestry Commissioners, and I hope the hon. Member who represents the Department will deal with the subject during the Debate. Sir Frederick Sykes on the same occasion said:
Such planting made a great improvement, but it was a question whether the responsibility and expense should not be undertaken by the owner of the land, the colliery company or the local authority rather than by the welfare fund.
That is from a man who realises the value of pithead baths and who at the same time realises the depressing effect of having alongside pithead baths, these huge and unsightly mounds. I hope, therefore, that something will be said this evening in regard to that matter. I


have here the reports of the Miners' Welfare Fund, in which this question is mentioned. Two photographs are reproduced in the report, one of the familiar cone like tip that is "a hideous blot on the countryside," and the other of a stretch of English landscape with low hills, in form not unlike great mounds of continuous tipping. The report comments:
Does it not suggest that if the debris has no commercial value, the assimilation of lower and more uniform tippings into the landscape could be successfully achieved by means of judicious planting assisted by the maturing action of time? 
Therefore I ask the House not to confine its attention to the Lake District in considering this matter. I agree with the Mover and Seconder of the Motion that the preservation of the countryside is something which ought to be watched jealously and that powers ought to be given to prevent defacement by "raucous" advertisements—I think that is the term which has been used. But let us also look nearer home. The people who have made money—I am referring to the financial interests connected with colliery companies, iron and steel works and so forth—go to the Lake District and such places in their retirement. They should remember the places where they have made their money and the condition of things which they have left behind them in those places. That is what troubles us. We have in our minds the idea that these people are allowed to do just what they like, without any regard to the amenities, in spoiling the vicinity of their works, but when they have made their money they retire in ease and comfort to enjoy the beauties of the countryside in other districts—those beauties which we are now trying to preserve for them.
I trust that while we are all agreed about preserving the beauties of the country we shall insist on some attempt being made to prevent these ugly accumulations in the industrial areas. Powers should be obtained and applied before the accumulation of debris takes place. I think a little examination of the question show how difficult and expensive it is to do anything once the accumulation has taken place, but if the matter were taken up at the very beginning something more could be done. I have here two reports of the Commissioners for the

Special Areas which have a bearing on this matter. We have heard about the beauty of the hills of Scotland, but there is another side to Scottish life which is illustrated on page 46 of the report of the Commissioner for the Special Areas in Scotland. It is headed "Beautifying Bings." "Bings," I should say, is the Scottish word for pit heaps. They use a rather nicer word in Scotland, but it signifies the same ugly thing. The Commissioner states:
I have received one or two suggestions that I should provide assistance to enable coal and iron, slag pit mounds, i.e., 'bings' to be beautified by means of afforestation or otherwise, the cost of their removal being quite prohibitive. I am assured that afforestation of 'bings' gives no promise of commercial success, but that the work is wholly amenity in character and provides employment, and it seems eminently appropriate to my functions to finance some experimental work to see what can be done to render these 'bings' more aesthetically attractive. I have, therefore, after consultation with the Forestry Commission given approval in principle to a suggestion to beautify a particularly unattractive iron slag 'bing' which overshadows the houses in the neighbourhood by planting it with hawthorn bushes and grass.
I draw the attention fo the representative of the Forestry Commission to that paragraph. Here is one way of dealing with mounds which cannot be removed without prohibitive cost, and I ask the Forestry Commission in their survey to consider this matter and try to give some assistance in making these mounds presentable. I have in mind one place in my own district, where we have a mound 100 yards square and 30 or 40 feet high. After much agitation, the colliery company set about putting out the fire. The fire has been put out, but the mound is still there, ready for something to be done with it. It overshadows all the houses round about, and there are colliery houses right at its foot. If it cannot be removed, could not something be done to assist in making it more presentable? Here we arrive at a rather difficult question. It is said that the colliery company owns the land and that if any attempt is made to beautify it, the company may want to take the added value afterwards. I wonder whether the Home Office could help us in that matter, whether they could make out a case. If the Forestry Commissioners made a suggestion to any colliery company with a view to making a piece of its land more attractive, could we not then ask them not to claim any


value from it later on? I put that forward as a suggestion, because I think it is as well to deal with the whole matter at the present time.
Now I want to touch again on the report of the Commissioner for Special Areas in England and Wales, and this is my chief point to bring before the House. In one paragraph the report deals with the question of amenities being removed altogether by industrial chaos, and it says:
It may be that many of those who read these pages know as little about the Areas from a personal aspect as I did before I undertook this work. I well remember the depressing effect the great slag heaps and the ruins of dismal factories had upon me on my first visit, and even some measure of familiarity has not removed that feeling. It is no easy task to persuade industries to come to some of these places, and makes me ask myself the question whether it is right that whole districts should be ruined without industry being held liable for some of the ruin they have created.
That is my case to-night. I want the House of Commons on this Motion to rouse public opinion to that point at which it will attempt to make the present sites better and more attractive. I also want, which is more important, public opinion to be such that it will not allow industrial activity to leave whole districts in a state that is not presentable and hardly fit to live in. That is what the House of Commons ought to attempt to do. It is not fair in this industrial striving for wealth to leave the whole of the ruins to those who cannot get away from them. The whole thing ought to go together. If amenity means anything at all, it means the preservation of those pleasant things that were there before the industrial chaos came. It is not fair that these places should be made a blot on the land, as they are at the present time, and as things are we seem to have no redress at all. Constantly I have brought to the attention of the House—some Members may think I have nothing else to talk about—what is termed the burning pit, and yet I am not able to persuade either the Ministry of Health or anybody else to give me any assistance to get the trouble remedied. Probably tonight I may get such a volume of opinion from all sides of the House that there may be some attempt to deal with this question.
I do not know whether or not the Home Office can help me—I am not sure that they have the power—but I want

to tell the Under-Secretary of State that not long ago, as I was going to the Labour Party Conference at Bournemouth, I passed through Birmingham, and I saw there many familiar scenes that reminded me of the place I came from—not altogether pit heaps, but slag heaps, in the vicinity of Birmingham, and outside were many slag heaps from iron-ore works. These things are not confined to colliery districts, but are found where there has been other industrial activity as well. These things want seeing to from the aesthetic point of view. I looked up the meaning of the word "aesthetic" in a dictionary, and I found it defined as "belonging to the appreciation of beauty," and "in accordance with the principles of good taste." The last sentence, I think, is the best of all. If manufacturers and employers would only act in accordance with the principles of good taste, it would be far better for the community as a whole.
In conclusion, I want to thank both the Mover and Seconder of the Motion for having dealt with the Motion in the way they have, but I would urge upon them to get a little bit away from the Lake District and send their minds to the industrial centres. If they do, they will go a long way to help me in my desire to remove what are called the slag heaps, the pit heaps, and all those things that make life for the workers so sordid and so bad while they have to carry on.

9.2 p.m.

Mr. Levy: I am sure that every Member of this House will agree that the preservation of our amenities is essential, and we would all deplore that they should be despoiled in any way. I am of the opinion that it is not more legislation that we want because I think that if the existing legislation was properly utilised and administered, further legislation would be redundant. Both the Mover and the Seconder of the Motion have, I am pleased to say, spoken of the Advertising Association in glowing and complimentary terms, and the Seconder, in particular, mentioned that the association works in harmony with the Scapa Society. If that be so, what do we find; We find that the association, which is the British Poster Advertising Association and the London Poster Advertising Association, for whom and on whose authority I speak to-night, constitutes over 90 per cent. of the poster advertising


people of this country. It has an Amenities Committee, and it has a very rigid Censorship Committee, which has been sitting for over 45 years. They are not the culprits. There are some outside advertisers who are the culprits and who do put up unsightly structures. But when we look at this Motion the innuendo implied is that the existing Acts are inadequate, ineffective and insufficient. Let us see whether that is so. The main Act to which we have to refer is the Act of 1925, which says:
The powers of a local authority under section two of the Advertisement Regulation Act, 1907 (in this Act referred to as the principal Act), shall include powers to make byelaws for regulating, restricting or preventing within their district or any part thereof the exhibition of advertisements so as to disfigure or injuriously affect—

(a) the view of rural scenery from a highway or railway, or from any public place or water; or
(b) the amenities of any village within the district of a rural district council; or
(c) the amenities of any historic or public building or monument or of any place frequented by the public solely or chiefly on account of its beauty or historic interest."
Then it goes on:
In the principal Act and in this Act the expression 'advertisements' includes any structure or apparatus erected or intended only for the display of advertisements.
That Section, I submit, is all-embracing. It was followed by the Act to which my hon. Friend referred, the Town and Country Planning Act, which again dealt with the matter. One is bound to ask whether the powers under these Acts have been properly utilised or administered. It is true that the county councils have made by-laws, but what has been done by the borough councils and the urban district councils? Only 22 per cent. of the municipal borough councils and only 28 per cent. of the urban district councils have made by-laws—an average of 25 per cent. Seventy-five per cent. of these councils have not even bothered to make by-laws. If a further Act were passed it would be delegated to the local authorities for administration, as the Acts to which I have referred are, yet 75 per cent. of them have not troubled to make by-laws under the Acts which already exist. I submit that pressure ought to be brought to bear upon them to utilise the powers that they already have. I say without hesitation that this laxity is responsible

for much of the existing state of affairs about which complaint is made.

Mr. H. Strauss: Will my hon. Friend deal with the point that the demand for further powers comes from the county councils, all of whom have made and are enforcing by-laws?

Mr. Levy: The Association of Municipal Corporations has been in communication with the Home Office and in a letter received by the Association as recently as 26th June last, the Home Office expresses the opinion that the introduction of a system of licensing to control the exhibition of advertisements is open to considerable objection on the ground that it would enable local authorities to discriminate between methods and forms of advertising employed by individual trades and businesses. It adds:
New legislation would not in any event be justified in the absence of evidence that existing powers were not sufficient and had not proved effective in practice.
That is my case. The powers have not been effective in practice because they have not been put into practice, inasmuch as 75 per cent. of the local authorities have not even bothered to make by-laws. I am authorised to suggest—and I hope it will meet with the approval of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to the Home Office—that a conference should be called of all the interests concerned, including the advertising interests and the local authorities, so that the questions at issue could be discussed, definite pledges undertaken, and arrangements made. Hon. Members know that when important industries give pledges they carry them out. If that were done, I think that, subject to the local authorities making by-laws and administering them, no further legislation would be necessary.
I am one of those who feel strongly about the preservation of amenities. We all deplore that they have not been preserved in the past as they ought to have been, and that a lot of that which has been destroyed, such as old buildings and places of historic value, ought never to have been destroyed. When, therefore, I argue from the point of view from which I am arguing now, it is not because I am not of the same opinion as other hon. Members who desire the preservation of amenities. I desire that as much as anyone, but I do not think that in this case further legislation is necessary. I hope


that the Under-Secretary can see his way to call the conference I have suggested and that he will decide after its deliberations what is best to be done.

9.13 p.m.

Mr. Mander: I desire to support what has been said by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), because we cannot overlook that part of the question to which he has referred. We have to think not only of those who spend their holidays and week-ends in the beautiful country districts, but of the great majority who are bound to live in dull and drear surroundings from the beginning of the year to the end. It is our duty to try to make those surroundings as attractive as we can. Naturally, I have much in mind the area referred to by my hon. Friend, namely, the Black Country between Birmingham and Wolverhampton through which I pass twice every week. It is one long depressing area which is the relic of the coal mining and iron period of the past. Attempts have been made during the height of unemployment to provide grants which would enable those pit mounds to be dealt with, but the scheme did not seem sufficiently attractive. I well remember upwards of 30 years ago an effort being made by the Midland Re-afforesting Association, with which Sir Oliver Lodge was associated as leader, to plant a number of these pit mounds. It was found that trees would grow there and flourish, but that they were singularly attractive to the children of the neighbourhood, and that unless they were guarded at considerable expense by railings it was very difficult to preserve them. It may be that now, when so many of these pit mounds are being levelled out for building purposes, and there is more local control of the area, we could have plantations, parks and amenities which were not practicable at that date, and if there is any possibility of the Forestry Commissioners afforesting any part of the area of the Black Country I hope the question will be considered.
Reference has been made to advertisements and to what is done in other countries. So far as I know, there is only one country where there are no advertisements, or practically none, and that is Russia, because there the demand for goods greatly exceeds the supply. I remember seeing only one adverisement in the Metro, in Moscow, and that was not

exactly an advertisement, but was propagranda drawing attention to margarine as a valuable food. The place of advertisements in the streets seemed to be taken up by full size portraits of political and industrial leaders, repeated at short intervals, and I cannot help feeling that even the attractive features of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for the Home Office might begin to pall on us if they were met with, enlarged 10 times beyond life-size, at every street corner. The general feeling, from what we have heard in the Debate, appears to be that there ought to be some control of advertisements in the open air by a licensing system. Already there are special Acts under which different local authorities are operating. There is the Liverpool Act, a Bill is being considered by the Lancashire County Council, and this year the Staffordshire County Council obtained powers to deal with out side advertisements, and I might quote the effective words in that Act, Section 34 (4):
The Council may serve on the owner or occupier of any land.… a notice in respect of any serious injury to the amenities of any public open space which may be caused by the display of advertisements on such land within 50 yards of the open space, requiring him within a reasonable time, and not less than 28 days.… to take such action and execute such works, including works of removal, as may be necessary.
"Open space" is defined as meaning:
(5) Any land let out or used as a public pleasure ground or place of public resort or recreation, including an open space for rest or recreation, or any village green to which the public have access.
I think the wisest thing to do would be to generalise powers of that kind in some suitable form. We should also bear in mind the advisability of removing from railway companies and other statutory bodies the exemption which at present they possess from control of their advertisements.
Regarding the Lake District, I cordially agree with the remarks made as to the relations existing between the Forestry Commissioners and the Council for the Preservation of Rural England. I am sure that both bodies have done all they could to agree, but the main ground for complaint is that the Forestry Commissioners have not the authority and are going out of their way to conciliate other bodies. I would appeal to the Government to take steps to amend the powers or regulations under which they are


working, so that they can and must take into consideration the public amenities.
This question really points in the direction of a matter which I do not intend to raise to-night, but will refer to only in passing, and that is the urgent necessity of setting up at the earliest possible moment a national parks authority for the whole country, which can review and keep constantly under supervision what is happening in these great national park areas. Whether they should have statutory powers or not is not so important at this stage as that such an authority should be got going and exercise general supervision. The only other point to which I would refer is the erection of pylons in the Lake District and their interference with the amenities. At present, before pylons can be erected three authorities have to give their consent—the county council, the rural district council and the owner of the land. There is a proposal to put up pylons along Borrodale Valley to the famous and beautiful Honister Pass for the benefit of the slate quarries there. I understand that the owner has consented, and the district council appear to have raised no objection, but the county council are doing all they can to prevent any despoilment of the view. That is a matter which ought to be kept under review by a suitable body such as a national parks authority. I hope that the result of this Debate will be helpful in stimulating both the Government and public opinion to take every possible effort to see that England is kept as nature made her for the enjoyment of the people.

9.22 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Lloyd): I think it will be for the convenience of the House if some reply were made now to the first part of the Motion. We are dealing with one aspect of a very great movement, the movement for the preservation of the natural beatuy and the amenities of the country. That movement has gathered great force only in comparatively recent years, and I think it is interesting to speculate, even for a moment only, upon the origins of that movement. I believe it to be one of a whole series of interesting and important reactions from the laissez aller and laissez faire of the Industrial Revolution. Indeed, it is interesting

to remark that it therefore has a common parentage, to a certain extent, with the great movement which brought hon. Members opposite into this House, and also with the development of the Protectionist policy for which so many Members on this side of the House have worked so hard.
Then, of course, there was the creation of the National Trust at the end of last century, the much greater care now given to ancient monuments by the Office of Works, and the development of those great voluntary societies to which the country owes so much, the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, the Scapa Society, of which my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich (Mr. H. Strauss) is chairman, and many local societies, such as the Cambridge Preservation Society, which deal with the preservation of amenities in particular areas. The Home Office, although it does not deal with the whole subject, is concerned with a great many aspects of it, and already under by-laws confirmed by my right hon. Friend several useful pieces of work have been done, including the regulation of the appearance of petrol-filling stations and the drawing up of by-laws dealing with the wholesale uprooting of flowers and the depositing of litter.
I shall be referring to-night chiefly to the first part of the Motion, dealing with the regulation of advertisements, but perhaps before I come to deal with that in more detail I might be allowed to say one word about the very important subject raised by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) and the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander), although the former generously pointed out that it is not a subject with which the Home Office normally deals, but I have made some inquiries into the subject and I can make, at any rate, a few observations upon it. I feel a great sympathy with the remarks that he made, and particularly with his reference to the report of one of the Commissioners for the Special Areas. On the other hand, it is a very difficult subject, but I agree with him that it is important whenever possible to prevent heap fires taking place; I think the alkali inspectors of the Ministry of Health are doing good work in that matter. They have worked out three or four methods of preventing them which local authorities are able to bring


to the notice of owners, and we may expect progress on those lines. On the other hand what is to be done, not when the heap is on fire—that makes the problem extraordinarily difficult—but when it has ceased to be on fire? I cannot help thinking that there is a great deal to be said for the suggestion he mentioned as having been brought forward by one of the Commissioners for the Special Areas when he said:
I believe something could be done in the way of planting trees, shrubs and grass. I have asked the newly-formed South-West Durham Improvement Association to make a careful study of this problem, and I hope that further research may provide an alternative solution by finding some economic use to which the material in these tip heaps can be put.
The Special Commissioner in his report for 1937 goes on to say:
It may be that many of those who read these pages know as little about the Areas from a personal aspect as I did before I undertook this work. I well remember the depressing effect the great slag heaps and the ruins of dismal factories had upon me on my first visit, and even some measure of familiarity has not removed that feeling.
And then he goes on to deal with the general question of the responsibility of industry in regard to the industrial areas, and he questions whether it is right that whole districts should be ruined without industry being held liable for some of the ruin created. He also refers to the Report on the Iron and Steel Industry by the Import Duties Advisory Board, which draws attention to the effect of surface quarrying of iron and steel. This is a problem which is engaging the attention of the Government, and the matter has also been brought to the notice of the Royal Commission on the Geographical Distribution of the Industrial Population.
I turn now more directly to the question raised to-night with regard to advertisements, and I would like to add my congratulations on the speeches delivered by my hon. Friends the proposer and seconder of this Motion for raising so persuasively and in such a conciliatory manner this very important matter. I am afraid I must disagree with the view taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Elland (Mr. Levy) that there is no case for asking for extended powers in this matter. I think one of the most important points is the attitude of the great associations of municipal authorities on this

matter, and the County Councils' Association and also the Association of Municipal Corporations definitely take up the attitude that further powers are necessary. At the same time I was very glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, speaking as chairman of the Scapa Society, said that these powers have not been useless. It is true that they have not been useless. On the other hand they do contain important gaps. For example, in the towns it is only in the case of advertisements in the neighbourhood of parks and promenades and historic and public buildings that the protection of the Act applies, and therefore all the other parts of towns have at present no protection. There was also a further small point with regard to the position which can occasionally arise in a very big urban area, for example Birmingham, which has agricultural land within the city boundary—that there is no protection for a village in an urban area.
I would like to say a word on the actual difficulties of this by-law procedure as we see them at the Home Office. For example take the question of the county councils. After the Act of 1925 was passed it was necessary for the Home Office to consider model by-laws. We take the view that it is difficult to get really effective action under a rather vague general by-law and that it is better, wherever possible, if you want effective powers to make the by-laws as precise as possible. For that reason the Home Office was inclined to take the view that the county councils would be wise to select particular areas within their counties where they thought they needed these powers especially, and to frame rather rigid and specific by-laws with regard to those areas. The county councils took a different view, and wished to have powers over the whole of their areas, with the result that the by-laws had to be in more general terms; and I think the fact that the county councils have now taken the view that further powers are necessary does show the unsatisfactory nature of the by-law method, and particularly the type of general by-law that has been adopted in the case of the county councils.
Take, again, the question of the boroughs. In the boroughs the Acts are of course of limited application, and it has been possible to frame more definite


by-laws. But there we also run up against considerable difficulties, and I would like to give the House an example. These Acts, of course, apply not only to advertisements professionally displayed by advertising companies, but also to the advertisements that may be exhibited by the occupier of a house or business premises. But by common consent there was a provision always made in the by-laws that exempted such advertisements. Local authorities were then faced with a definite abuse of that exemption, when somebody put a few packets of cigarettes in the front window and thus was automatically able to display, without any possibility of dealing with the matter, an enormous and a hideous advertisement for the sale of cigarettes on the roof.
In order to deal with that difficulty, there was another by-law made to limit the display in a business premises or a house by the person living there, or occupying the business premises, to what may be called a reasonable display. That form of the by-law is believed to have worked well in county areas, but was found to be too drastic for a borough where the by-laws may prohibit the exhibition in selected areas of any advertisements which "could be seen as part" of the view. With that restriction there would have been cases of teashops where quite a small advertisement, if it was displayed on either side of the shop, in circumstances quite reasonable, would have come within the restrictions of the by-laws. This example shows the second defect of the by-law method. On the one hand a by-law may be too general to be effective, and, on the other hand, if it is rigid it tends to cause a number of hard cases in special circumstances. If that is common ground, it follows that there ought to be some extension of the law and of the present powers. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Elland that a general licensing power is too strong a measure, because it involves dictatorial interference with legitimate business activities.
That brings me to the proposal put forward by my hon. Friend. The procedure which he suggests is founded on Section 47 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932, and is followed in a number of local Acts in order to protect open spaces from advertisements. The procedure which he suggests differs from

licensing in the important respect that the advertiser can go ahead without consulting anyone, and that he has a right of appeal against any subsequent action by the council. It also means that an advertiser may go to the council in advance for their approval, and that he has a right of appeal against any adverse decision. I think the House will agree that those are valuable safeguards. A further point is that the advertiser is not in either case haled before the court as an offender. There will simply be a settlement by an independent authority of the difference of opinion between him and the council. In view of the attitude of the advertising interests, to which I propose to refer in a moment, it is possible that the suggested procedure would enable differences of opinion to be settled amicably in a great many cases before the advertisement was put up. In addition, it has the elasticity necessary to allow it to apply both to town and to country.
Now I come to the attitude of the advertising and poster interests. In that connection, the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Elland was interesting, particularly the proposal which he made at the end. It is important for the House to realise that the advertising poster interests are taking up a most progressive and reasonable attitude in the matter. They have been most friendly with the Scapa Society, as my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich explained, and have given good co-operation in a number of individual cases. I understand, for example, that in West Sussex, when there was a difference of opinion between the local authority and the British Billposter Association, they both agreed to ask the secretary of the Scapa Society to look over the actual sites and the posters in question, and in every case his decision was accepted as final by the poster association. I understand that a similar process occurred in the case of the Kent County Council and certain big advertisers. In every case where there was an adverse decision against the posters, it was accepted by the poster company.
There is an example which I should like to bring to the notice of the House because it illustrates a number of points. Many hon. Members may know that there is a famous vantage point in Kent at the top of Wrotham Hill. In the summer it


is passed by thousands of working people from London going to take their holidays or their pleasure in Folkestone, Ramsgate and Margate, or going to Canterbury. It is a point at which motorists of all kinds and charabancs stop to enjoy the wonderful view of the Weald of Kent. Just below, there is an old chalk quarry which, a short time ago, was seriously disfigured by advertisements which were quite inappropriate to the place. Some were general posters and some were of the reflector type which lights up when struck by the lights of a car. The owners of the reflector type of advertisement agreed to withdraw from the site if the other advertisers would do the same. The other advertisers agreed, and, as a result, all the advertisements were withdrawn from that site; but—and there is an important "but"—after a period which was quite satisfactory it was suddenly found, only a short time ago, that the site was again disfigured, not by the advertisers who had agreed to withdraw, but by a completely new set of advertisers of an independent kind. The responsible poster advertising association and company who were co-operating beforehand in this matter have a considerable right to feel injured by what has happened since.
The procedure outlined by the hon. Gentleman would succeed in dealing with a matter of that kind in a very efficient and expeditious manner. We have to bear in mind all the time that there is no quarrel between those who desire to see the preservation of natural beauty and the advertising concerns who have legitimate business interests in the display of posters. I was particularly interested to hear ray hon. Friend the Member for Elland take the view that a conference of all the interests concerned might well be held at the Home Office to investigate the matter further. I would very much like to take up that proposal, and suggest that there should be a round-table conference at the Home Office of all the interests concerned, taking as a basis the proposals which my hon. Friend has brought forward tonight, and incidentally a number of points, into which I think the House will not wish me to go at the moment, raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, such as advertisements in the air and by the sea. We might well hope that such a conference would reach

an agreed solution, which might be in corporated in a Private Member's Bill.

Mr. Levy: Apropros of that suggestion, I should be very grateful to my hon. Friend if it were carried out, and I think he can count on the whole-hearted co-operation of the advertising interests. They will be pleased to attend any conference, and he can rely on their good will.

Mr. Ede: Did I understand the hon. Gentleman to say, "a Private Member's Bill"? Surely it is a matter for which the Government should accept responsibility.

Mr. Lloyd: If we can get agreement on this matter, a Private Member's Bill might be a very suitable method of dealing with the question, which has, in the past, always been dealt with by Private Member's Bill. On the basis of the atmosphere that we have on this matter in the House to-night, we may well hope, as a result of this development and of this conference, that what every hon. Member in this House desires will be done, and some practical progress made in the matter in a reasonable time.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Ellis Smith: My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) desires me to express his appreciation of the way in which the Under-Secretary has dealt with the question that he raised. The hon. Member who moved this Motion will have got some consolation out of the way the Debate has gone up to the present, and, if it helps to stimulate public opinion on the question which has been debated, it will have served a very useful purpose. I remember once spending my holidays in the Isle of Wight and, walking from Shanklin to Ventnor along a beautiful part of that island, seeing painted on a notice board:
A thing of beauty is a joy for ever.
I have never forgotten that, and many times, when I think of that beautiful part of the country and of those words, I also think of the industrial part from which I come. I wish that in days gone by the Government of this country, whether nationally or locally, had been conducted more on the principles which are finding expression in the House this evening. I have in mind one large municipality which is setting a fine example to the country at the present time. In travelling down to


this House, and in travelling to various parts of the country, I pass through that municipality and see large railings being taken down, high walls being taken down, everything being taken down that has hidden the beauty of the district in the past. I refer to the large industrial centre of Salford, where in the past they have had high walls and railings, with the result that there has been very little green and very few trees to be seen by people passing along the roads. Now the Parks Committee, and the superintendent who acts on behalf of the Parks Committee, are adopting a different policy altogether, and it is surprising to see the psychological effect on the people living in the vicinity, to hear the conversations of men, women and children on the buses and trams as they pass these parks, and to see the way in which their faces and eyes light up when they can see the real beauty of the parks I am describing.
The hon. Member for East Wolver hampton (Mr. Mander) has spoken about the children. I know that he meant his remark to be taken in its general sense, but he said that many years ago the children did not respect this, that and the other. Since then, and even since my day, the schoolmasters have been at work, and we now find that the children in most industrial centres, as a result of the great educational work which is being carried on and of the enlightenment which is finding expression in the curriculum of the ordinary elementary schools, are respecting beauty, are respecting flowers, trees and vegetation, so that the accusations which have been made in the past against children in industrial parts of the country cannot generally be made to-day.
I want to associate myself with my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh in dealing very briefly with the effects of pit heaps and slag heaps; and another matter about which I am particularly concerned is the effect of slum clearances. We find that, as a result of the slum clearance policy that is being pursued, hundreds of houses are demolished, but very often the bricks are not taken away, so that not only have we to contend with pit heaps and slag heaps, but in most industrial centres great eyesores are to be found where houses have been cleared but the bricks and other debris still lie there. This reminds me of my experience during the Coronation celebrations, when the

Director of Education took my wife and myself round to see the children in the city which I represent. It was a treat such as I had not had for some time to see the way in which these children were enjoying themselves; and I also enjoyed seeing the number of parks that had been made from pit heaps and the parks that had been made on spaces which used to be derelict. In the district of Fenton in particular—I have mentioned this before in the House, but have no hesitation in mentioning it again, because it is a good example of what can be done—during the War there was a large pit heap, one of the largest in the country. German prisoners were set to work on that heap and they brought about such a change as the result of their work that in a short time a beautiful park was made, and now, as you go through that centre and walk over what was the pit heap, you pass through that beautiful park, which is the admiration of all who have seen it. The same applies to the constituency of the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton. During last summer I had the privilege of speaking in that district on behalf of the trade union movement, in a beautiful park which was a credit to whoever was responsible for laying it out. That park was at one time a disused pit heap. It had been levelled and nicely laid out. I hope that, as a result of the interest which will have been stimulated by the Debate this evening, the examples I have quoted will be followed throughout the country.
More and more we are finding that in industrial centres great interest is being taken in allotments and horticultural societies. Regular meetings and lectures are held, and I know sufficient of the effect of this kind of thing to enable me to say that flowers and vegetation, particularly in industrial centres, have a great psychological effect on the people. They are symbolical of beauty and culture; they have a refining and uplifting effect; and the more we can get this policy adopted, the more interest we can create in this question, the better it will be for the people whom we represent. I shall never forget an experience that I had about six months ago. I was in what would probably be one of the poorest houses in this country. While I stood there talking to the father and the mother, it almost made tears come into my eyes to think of the wonderful spirit which expressed itself


in the lives of the people who were living in that house. They took me inside to show me the terrible conditions under which they were living, and, while I was talking to them, their two daughters at the back of me were polishing the furniture for all they were worth. I turned round, and saw that, despite the terrible conditions under which these people were living, one could almost see oneself in the furniture, on account of the pride that these people took in their house. I went upstairs, and found a number of young children, and saw one of the results of the education which these children are now receiving—beautiful paintings on the walls of this poor house.
Then I went outside, and saw a large piece of land where there had been a slum clearance. It had bricks all over it, water was running all over it, and children with hardly any shoes or clothes on were playing in this water and among the stones. I would ask, what is the use of giving these children an education of that kind, what is the use of building up hopes in the hearts of children, what is the use of developing these children's outlook, of developing their culture and their better side, if, as soon as they get out of the schools to their homes, they have to pass their time in an environment of that kind? When I go to Eastbourne and see the beautiful bandstand, when I go to Bournemouth and see the beautiful front, when I go to Blackpool and see the beautiful parks and promenade, I think of the great changes which have been taking place in this country during the past 100 years, and the great developments. Surely it is not too much to ask that the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh has raised in this House during the past three or four years should receive attention, in order that the conditions and environment of the people for whom we speak can be improved in a like manner.

10.1 p.m.

Lord Balniel: Of the two points in this Motion the second is the more important. The first, in regard to advertisements in the wrong places, is obvious to our eyes, and has the effect, on me at any rate, of preventing me from buying the goods advertised thereon, although they may be almost as good as is claimed in the advertisements. At the worst, they are ephemeral, and the damage they do is reparable. Nevertheless, I welcome what my hon. Friend on the Front Bench has

said. Let us try to instil good manners, and let us hope that the conference proposed may bring about some desirable result. The other issue is more important, because it is linked up with the whole problem of the amenities of this country. My hon. Friend mentioned that there was a growing realisation throughout the country that our country and our towns were being destroyed. He gave as a reason a rather—if I may say so—Baldwinian explanation. I am not sure that the real reason is not rather simple. Is it not merely that during the lifetime of the National Government there has been more destruction of rural and urban beauty than in any previous corresponding period in the whole history of our country? The hon. Gentleman shakes his head; but we have only to go out through London, to go to any provincial town, to go along the roads, and see that the well intentioned Acts for town planning, which this House believed would do good, are more or less inoperative.
There is a growing realisation of this deplorable situation, and there is also coupled with it, I believe, a growing demand that the Government should take action, although as yet I cannot see any desire on the part of the Government either to take action or to accept responsibility for what is one of the major domestic problems of the day. Local authorities may be responsible for certain parts of this destruction of our amenities, but the Government itself is directly responsible for a great deal. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) mentioned the question of pylons, which are a direct Government responsibility. I see with dismay that the Government intend to reintroduce, after it has been twice rejected by this House, the Caledonian Power Bill. That will be a direct responsibility of the Government.
Another case in which the Government accepts more or less direct responsibility is on the question, which we have been discussing, of the Forestry Commission. The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) implied that we were only interested in the Lake District, and so on, but I think he is wrong. I take just as deep an interest, as he knows, in the specific problem of which he was speaking, as he does. I know the difficulties of attempting to plant on a slag heap. It is very difficult, of course, to plant trees


on a hill which contains no soil. You have to create a humus and to create soil, and even then you cannot grow anything more than shrubs. But so long as there is something covering these bleak, desolate hills, that is some improvement. I agree with the hon. Member who has just spoken about those heaps of bricks which, on a smaller scale, disfigure great areas of our country.
It is one of the limitations of the Forestry Commission, as I see it, that they work on a purely commercial basis, and one of the troubles of the Commissioners is that they are not allowed, under the 1919 Act, to pay attention to certain problems to which the hon. Gentleman referred, such as the Lake District. The Commission is constituted in a rather curious way. I think, in fact, that it is unique. We give it a grant, but exert no control. We have the highest respect for its personnel. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope) is one of the most respected Members of the House, and so is the hon. Gentleman who was sitting on the Front Bench. Then we are delighted to be able to congratulate the fourth Member of the Forestry Commission in the House on the announcement that he is about to celebrate his marriage. But I think the system of giving a grant and exercising no control is probably as unsatisfactory to the Commissioners as it clearly is to the House.
Yet, in spite of that unsatisfactory position, I think that the Commission has done, and is doing, extraordinarily valuable work. The production of timber is a question of vital interest, chiefly, of course, in time of war, when it is one of the most important considerations, but, in our industrial life as well, we see to-day a rise in the price of foreign imported timber which is having a deplorable effect on the building trade and the mining industry. Costs are rising by leaps and bounds. If we could rely more on timber grown by the Forestry Commissioners we should not be subject to such fluctuations.
I agree with my hon. Friend who moved this Motion with regard to what he said about conifers. We all wish, and I am sure the Commission themselves wish, that we had planted fewer conifers and more hard wood. I agree with

them. Nevertheless, we must recognise that, while we may not like them, conifers are, at any rate to the mining industry, a very vital form of wood, and a cheap supply of timber is an essential part of the programme of the Commission. The properties which the Commissioners own are, I believe, very well managed. The forestry that is done there is good and is improving very much as time goes on. At least when I look at their more recent properties I see a far higher standard of the culture of trees than in some of their earlier plantings. If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would give up his passion for conifers, and the disgraceful habit of ringing old trees, and if he would pay a little more attention to the type of cottage which he puts up in these areas, I should be able to give him the most complete and whole-hearted support. These, of course, are only details.
It has been said, and rightly, that, in the Act which constitutes the Commission, Parliament did not enjoin upon the Commissioners to pay any regard to the question of amenities. It is not for the Commissioners to decide whether planting would spoil this district or that, or indeed, an even broader issue, as to whether planting in this district or that is in the national interest. The only question that it has to consider is that of econome planting. It is clear that there can be a clash between considerations of economic planting and of national interests. Such a clash has definitely occurred in the Lake District. The integrity of the Lake District is a question of very real and great national importance. The Commissioners have got plantations in the heart of this district and are now planting, and will continue to plant, in two valleys for a number of years. I do not blame them, because according to their constitution they are perfectly right, and yet in the national interest—in fact, I could not be more certain of anything than I am of this—they are wrong and they have done irreparable harm to two very beautiful valleys.
The plan in Eskdale and Duddondale raised a storm of indignation when it was mooted. A petition was signed by over 12,000 people, including many of the most distinguished names in the country. The movement was very genuine and sincere, to try and prevent this planting and to offer to buy out the Commission. The


Commissioners, while they made concessions and said that they would not plant certain areas, felt unable to go the whole way, and the damage, as I regard it, was done. I do not want to go into the past more than just to refer to it as an indication of the type of conflicting interests which exist, and which must exist under the present constitution of the Commission and without the interest of the Government themselves or of any higher authority than the Commission. I do not want to deal with the past or to make any recriminations whatever. On both sides there were mistakes and there were faults. Neither side played their cards in the best way or in the way that would bring about a reasonable compromise. I would rather look to the future, and I hope that, on all these points, the Commission will show, and, indeed, I beg of them the utmost caution when there is any possibility of conflict between these two interests. I hope that we can have in the future the certainty that these problems will be treated with really sympathetic consideration, that concessions will be made to local feelings and opinions and to the character of any particular district.
To ask them to protect the Lake District is not asking much. It is a very small area—an area with a radius of only something like 15 miles, and yet within that area there is perhaps a greater variety of scenery, most certainly than in any other area in this country, and probably than in any other area in the whole world. There are mountains and dales, rivers, fells and lakes, fertile valleys and rough arid waste lands, and there are villages. It is a position quite unique in this country, and we would be very foolish if we were not to protect it to the utmost of our ability. Not only is it to us infinitely precious, but its value grows day by day, as so much of the rest of England is destroyed. We do not wish to destroy it. We should no more destroy it and no more tolerate its destruction than we should tolerate the destruction of our cathedrals, and yet it is really as great a possession, if not a greater possession. It is an asset which is realised to the full by the people of this country, and they use it freely.
There is in this district less limitation of access to the higher grounds and fells than in any other part of England. Practically everywhere is free. Technically

landowners are the owners, but in point of fact there is the utmost freedom of access to all parts of this district. I am afraid that the action of the Forestry Commissioners will limit that very drastically. It is true that they are buying a great deal of land which they are not going to afforest, and they are, I believe, either handing it over to the National Trust or keeping it entirely free for the enjoyment of the public. Nevertheless, large areas are being covered with forest. The access to these free areas above them is not, as it has been, an open fell-side where you can go where you wish, either this way or that way, in complete freedom. That cannot be when you have afforestation. Access to these higher grounds must inevitably be through barbed wire lanes that lead between the ranks of the spruce trees.
I think we are giving up something big in handing over this beautiful part of the country to that treatment. I know that some of the Commissioners believe that in planting spruce they are not destroying the beauty of this area and that they are not injuring it in any way. I do not believe that anyone else would agree with that view. It is a view, surely, that can be held only by people who are perhaps so interested in the work they are doing that they are blinded to other considerations. If there is any who doubts that this sort of planting is doing damage to the Lake District, let him look, for instance, at Thirlmere, the source of the Manchester Corporation water supply, a beautiful lake, which has been surrounded by precisely these firs. Having once been to Thirlmere, no one would ever again wish to go there.

Mr. Ede: Question.

Lord Balniel: Perhaps I exaggerate it. I see that I am speaking to a Manchester man.

Mr. Ede: I do not come from Manchester, but I have been to Thirlmere, and while it may not be as beautiful as it might be I hope to go there again.

Lord Balniel: I go there very often and I hope to go there again, but the hon. Member, I am sure, will agree with me that, as he says himself, while it might be more beautiful than it is, the destruction of the natural beauty of that lake


by the planting of conifers has been deplorable. I hope the hon. Member will agree to that.

Mr. Ede: That is rather a strong word.

Lord Balniel: I will tame it down to whatever the hon. Member wants. He agrees, at any rate, that it is a pity.

Mr. Ede: Mr. Ede indicated assent.

Lord Balniel: We will leave it at that. It is a pity, and I think most people would be prepared almost to say it is a tragedy, that so beautiful a district is covered with conifers. It means a black pall of spruce trees which hide all the wonderful varieties of texture, colour, beauty and contour which make the Lake District one of the miracles of the world. It blankets all those things with a dull monotony, such as one gets anywhere else in a spruce belt.
I should like now to refer briefly to the agreement which has been come to between the Forestry Commission and the Joint Council to eliminate planting in an area of 300 square miles. I welcome that agreement and I welcome still more the fact that it accepts the principle that planting under certain conditions and in certain places is not desirable; but I cannot help remembering, and I do not think that it is ungenerous to point it out, how much is excluded from those 300 square miles. Those 300 square miles are not the Lake District. The Lake District is at least 700 square miles in extent. Excluded from this area are Duddondale, Eskdale, and such Lakes as Bassenthwaite, Haweswater, Coniston, and Windermere. Those are some of the most famous portions of the Lake District, yet they are excluded. The Forestry Commission have given no undertaking that they will not afforest this district.
Outside that area there are portions of the shaded area in which they assure us that special consideration will be given to the particular needs of the district. I want to ask the Commissioners to look upon this shaded area as the very minimum, and that they will treat most generously and with great care districts not only in the shaded area but adjacent to it and surrounding it. If they do that they will be doing a generous thing. If they do so I believe it will be in the

national interest, and would have the sympathy not only of the House but of the whole country. On that point an assurance would be most welcome. If the right hon. and gallant Member can tell us that he and his Commission genuinely propose to look upon this whole area as an area in which they will pay particular regard to the feelings of those who love it, and, pay particular attention to local needs and local industries, such as the unfortunate sheep industry which has suffered in Duddondale and Eskdale, he would dissipate many doubts and remove many fears which are still widespread, and which I think are still justified.
May I put one point about the new purchase in Grisedale which is in the heart of my own constituency? Let me remind the right hon. and gallant Member that it is not in the excluded area. As it is between Lake Coniston and Lake Windermere one would have thought that it was in the heart of the Lake district. It is put in the shaded area to which special attention is to be paid. I understand that larch is to be planted here as far as possible, and that spruce is to be used where larch will not grow in the damp bottoms. I also understand that the lower area around Eskdale is not to be planted and that the farms are going to be left as they are. No assurance on that point has been given, but if the right hon. and gallant Member can say something about it I should be grateful and I am sure a large number of people also would be grateful. I know the difficulties. One difficulty is the regulation by which the Treasury have instructed the Forestry Commission to plant within 15 miles of the Special Areas. While the Treasury can do no wrong I think they have been caught napping, and realise as little, perhaps, as the House, that practically the whole of the Lake district is within 15 miles of a Special Area. The result is that the Commission were definitely instructed to plant within this area, and it is all the more to their credit that they have resisted planting and have gone elsewhere, when they could do so, in spite of the pressure which has been exerted on them.
In conclusion, this is so small an area that surely, without being discourteous to the Commissioners, they could go elsewhere. I am very fond of the right


hon. and gallant Gentleman, but I do not want him in the Lake District. No one has welcomed the visitations of the Forestry Commissioners in that district. There are plenty of districts elsewhere, not very far from the lake area, where the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would be welcomed. Those districts are crying out for trees, and they are districts that would be eminently suitable for whatever kind of trees the Commissioners wished to grow. I sincerely beg the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to leave us alone in the Lake District, because I believe this is a matter of real importance. I hope that, in expressing what I believe to be the views of the House, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will be responsive to my appeal, and will see whether he can go some way towards relieving the doubts that we have about the shaded areas and the district outside them.

10.24 p.m.

Colonel Sir George Courthope: In replying for the Forestry Commission to that part of the Motion which affects them, I wish, first of all, to thank my hon. Friends who moved and seconded the Motion for the spirit in which they did so, and for the way in which they expressed the sense of alarm which has been aroused in some quarters by the action of the Forestry Commission in the Lake District and elsewhere. I wish that all our critics had been as moderate and as modest in their choice of language. In view of the friendly nature of the Debate that has taken place, I shall not do what I had intended to do, namely, to reply to some of the criticisms that have been widely circulated through the House on behalf of an organisation known as the Friends of the Lake District. I think I had better leave that alone, and content myself with giving a general assurance to the House that the Forestry Commissioners are as anxious as anyone, as anxious even as my noble Friend the Member for Lonsdale (Lord Balniel), as anxious as the wildest of the friends of the Lake District can be, to preserve amenities both in the Lake District and elsewhere. I assure the House that we are not the enemies of the sheep, and do not propose to exterminate them. Nor are we eager, when we might go elsewhere, to buy up and destroy every dale and fell in the admittedly very beautiful district of the Lakes.
But I ask my Noble Friend and others to believe that there can be a genuine difference of opinion in these matters. In view of the strength of my Noble Friend's remarks, I hesitate to say what I had intended to say, that I do not yield to him in my love of the Lakes. I love the Lake District as much as anyone does. To my mind, the one thing it lacks is more trees. While I respect the sincerity of his view that the addition of large numbers of trees might destroy the beauty of the Lake District, I am equally sincere in my belief that it would enormously enhance it. There is that genuine difference of opinion. My Noble Friend referred to the fact that the Commissioners have, by agreement, sterilised, as far as their action is concerned, an area of 300 square miles in the centre of the Lake District. We have agreed not to take land there for planting. We did not do that because we thought the whole of the land was unsuitable for growing trees, but because we wanted to carry public opinion with us, and a very great volume of public opinion has been aroused, by fair means or foul, against the introduction of planting in the Lake District.
Before I leave the subject of the Lake District, I should like to say a few words about the difficulties which the Forestry Commission have encountered. Those difficulties have arisen specially owing to the existence of the West Cumberland Special Area and the instructions given to us by the Government and by this House to make a special effort within that and other Special Areas or within 15 miles of them, to give additional employment in forestry. We were given wider financial powers for the acquiring of land for that purpose, than we had for our general purposes. If we had agreed to exclude from planting operations all the land that the Friends of the Lake District desired us to exclude, there would be very little Special Area left in West Cumberland at all. We were asked to exclude practically everything between Penrith and the sea. Originally, and I believe long before the Friends of the Lake District existed, we had been in consultation with Professor George Trevelyan, to whose kind assistance I would like to pay testimony. He is a noted lover of the Lake District. We agreed that a certain area should be left without more trees than it possesses to-day. That area has been expanded, first, after consultation with the


special committee of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England and afterwards under pressure from the Friends of the Lake District.
We Commissioners believe that we have gone to the very limit of reasonable compromise and that, in view of the fact that we were under the obligation to make a special effort, we could not justify to this House a withdrawal from the operations already commenced within that Special Area, unless we were able to replace that land with equally suitable and equally suitably placed land. We have not been able to do so. One of the special difficulties of this area is that more than half the land is what is known as "stinted." It is common land on which a number of farmers, many of them quite small people, have the right to run a stated number of sheep. They have the right to run the sheep over the whole mountain side. While one of these "stints," re mains, it is impossible for the Forestry Commission to enclose and without enclosure, planting is out of the question. We are cut out of a very large amount of plantable land within the West Cumberland Special Area by the existence of these "stints," and we are consequently limited in our acquisitions to those smaller areas which are free from "stints," and where the owners are willing to co-operate.
In these circumstances where we are offered land for the special purpose of afforestation on terms which are reasonable and fair, surely it is asking too much to ask us to try to justify to this House a refusal of facilities for planting, in addition to what we have already yielded, simply because a large number of people prefer to see the valleys bare. I wish we could do so. I wish it was possible to withdraw from the whole of that area, because I feel it is of great importance to carry not only general public opinion but local public opinion with us. But, in the circumstances, I think we have gone to the very limits of reason in the concessions already made. I hope the House and the general public will support us in that view.
Before I forget it, let me refer to a very definite question which my Noble Friend the Member for Lonsdale put to me about Grisedale. Grisedale is not in the scheduled area, I must remind him,

but in spite of that I am able to assure him that we hope mainly to plant larch and hardwood, because we believe it will carry them—we always plant larch and hardwood in preference to spruce on suitable land—and the meadows round Esthwaite will be sterilised as private open spaces. That, I think, is all he wants, and I do not want to score off my Noble Friend by telling him that it is out of the scheduled area. I do not attach much importance to that, because we intend as far as possible to consider amenities and local opinion everywhere.
Now may I come to one or two other questions that have been raised to-day? There has been reference to another district where there has been a little local trouble. Incidentally, I may mention that there is hardly anywhere where we go that we do not find a minority who will say to us, "Forestry is a very nice thing. Plant trees anywhere in England, but not here. Leave us alone." The Lake District is an extreme case, but we have found it in Dartmoor and in many other parts of the country. I will mention an interesting thing that arose in the discussion that took place about Breckland. A body consisting of a large number of very learned names petitioned the Forestry Commission to keep our hands off a particular strip, very well defined, on the ground that it was one of the few remaining parts of untouched Breckland upon which the flora and fauna peculiar to that land was to be found, but the unfortunate thing was that this particular strip had been arable land many times. It had been compulsorily ploughed up under the cultivation Orders during the Great War and had gone back, not to Breckland, but out of cultivation, as soon as the compulsory Orders ended, and was now growing thistles, ragwort and the usual arable land weeds. I mention that, not by way of complaint, but as an example of a great deal of the trouble that we have to face in the country. That has been settled now, and I hope it will not arise again.
I hope the House will accept the general assurance, which I wish to repeat, that everywhere, and not in the Lake district only, we shall try to carry local opinion with us if we can. The mover of this Motion made one or two recommendations. He said he wished we employed landscape consultants. Probably, if


opinion was taken as to the most prominent landscape consultants for the purpose to-day, the names would be those of Sir Guy Dawber and Professor Patrick Abercrombie. We are consulting them both.

Mr. G. Nicholson: I meant as part of the Forestry Commissioner's staff.

Sir G. Courthope: We consult the Standing Committee of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, and we get this Standing Committee's advice.

Lord Balniel: But you do not take it. It is a little unfair to use Professor Abercrombie's name as a consultant without recording how anxious he was to prevent the planting of Eskdale and Duddondale, and, indeed, to increase the sterilised area.

Sir G. Courthope: It is perfectly true that Professor Abercrombie was one of those who said they preferred a wider area and signed a report in which the sterilised area was agreed. I do not think the Noble Lord and I are at cross-purposes at all. I was dealing with the point raised by my hon. Friend who moved the Motion with regard to consultations, and I say that we frequently consult Professor Abercrombie. I have been asked a question about the Roman Wall. I was unable in answer to a question in the House to give a guarantee that in no circumstances whatever would we do anything within three miles of the Roman Wall, but I can assure the House that the greatest possible care will be exercised, and that we shall do nothing which will in any way impair the value of that priceless treasure. I hope that if we acquire land closer to the Roman Wall than we have already, we may have a definite hand in its preservation.
A number of speeches have been made on the general question of hard wood and soft wood. I should like to say at once that I have not a passion for conifers. In fact, I rather thought that in this building I might have been associated rather particularly with a deep-rooted affection for the oak. I must remind the House that the principal need of this country in timber is for soft woods. About 97 per cent. of our total requirements of soft woods has to be imported. A much larger proportion of the hard wood re-

quirements is home-grown. Looking at the need from the point of view of war or a great emergency, I would remind the House of the position with which this country was faced during the Great War in keeping the mines open, because of the need for timber for pit props. That need absorbed a large part of the standing woods of this country. To a large extent they have not been re placed, and there is a real danger that unless active steps are taken, as we Commissioners are trying to take them, to maintain the supply of pit wood in this country, circumstances might arise during a war when we might run short. At such a time it would not be easy to switch over the steel works to the making of steel props.
A few years ago we were importing timber at the rate of £40,000,000 worth a year. Last year the imports went up to £61,000,000. During the first 10 months of this year the amount was £68,000,000, and what it will be at the end of the year I do not know. I am referring to the imports of all timber and wood, taking the round figure, because it is a general indication of our dependence upon imported timber supplies, due to the gradual exhaustion, the fairly rapid exhaustion, of the soft wood virgin forests. It is a really serious matter, and whether we look at it from the point of view of war emergency or peace economy it is of the utmost importance that the task which this House assigned to the Forestry Commission should be carried out. We are trying to carry out that task with due regard to local opinion and amenities. I appeal to the House to accept my assurance on that point, and I hope that hon. Members will do their best to help us in our work and to make our task easy.
One point only I have left out. I have the greatest possible sympathy with the question raised by two hon. Members opposite about the pit mounds. The Forestry Commission could probably help with advice and would gladly do so, but to deal with those places would be outside the scope of our active operations, because we cannot deal with smaller areas than 1,000 acres. We cannot deal with two acres here and five acres there. We might very likely be able to save expense and prevent mistakes by offering technical advice, but it is really a gardening operation rather than a forestry one, and


a matter for local authorities or local associations. I thank the House for the way they have listened to me, and I appeal to Members to help the Forestry Commission in the task which we have to do of providing an insurance for this country as regards its timber supplies, and enable us to do that with the good will of all concerned.

Mr. G. Nicholson: Can the right hon. and gallant Member give me any indication of his response to my plea that a plan of the country should be made showing the areas which the Commission think suitable for their operations?

Sir G. Courthope: I do not think we could undertake that. We have surveyed the greater part of the country, and on the strength of that we are trying to acquire land within the limits of our financial powers in almost every part of the country.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman give consideration to the suggestion of the hon. Member, and if he is not able to reply now will he at least promise that serious consideration shall be given to the preparation of a plan?

Sir G. Courthope: Which would cover the whole country?

Mr. Harvey: Yes.

10.48 p.m.

Mr. David Grenfell: It is singularly unfortunate, when the question of afforestation has been raised, that the time in which to deal with it is so limited. The right hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken has given information which the House must realise to be of very great value, but no adequate answer could be given, and that is where the limitation bears harshly on those who speak on this question of afforestation. The Forestry Commission are very seriously apprehensive of the position as to future supplies of timber in this country. In the interests of general forestry, apart from the responsibility placed upon the Commission by the Forestry Act of 1919, there must be a very much wider survey which will include the supervision, the planning and the organised development of private forestry as well. If the House realised the full position with regard to future supplies of timber there

would be far less tendency to find fault with the acquisition of land for forestry. You must have land on which to plant your forests, and the land has to be bought and to be bought cheaply and in large quantities. It is not always easy to get suitable land unless you go to places which are beautiful. We are happy in the enjoyment of a very beautiful country, but if people try to put obstacles in the way of the Forestry Commission on the ground that the neighbourhood of our forests is attractive and beautiful, the prospects of afforestation will be seriously jeopardised.
I do not think there is anybody in this country who loves the country more than I do, but I really am surprised at people who see the beauty of only one part of Britain. If I were to trust myself to speak of Wales I could raise a strong protest against the way in which the natural beauty of Wales has been affected by this industry or that. I would say this for the process of afforestation, that there is no large-scale industry which adds more to the amenities of the country, and there is also no single factor in our national economy which promises so much to stem rural depopulation. There is nothing more beautiful in our country that the cottages nestling on the hillside containing human population. What more joyful sight can you see than the cottages in the glens of Scotland and the valleys in the North of England and in Wales? There is a kind of beauty which can only be enhanced, not diminished, by the operations of the Forestry Commission.
We on the Forestry Commission feel that we ought to enjoy the confidence of this House and of all parts of the House. All parties are represented on the Forestry Commission and I represent my Party there just as faithfully as I do here, for I believe this is a great national undertaking. I believe I have converted the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to be a Socialist and, strangely enough, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is just as enthusiastic as I am, but we have worked together on that body in order to build up something which will be of value both in peace and war.
Something has been said about town and country planning, I think something is very much amiss. If the local authorities have not sufficient power more power


should quickly be given to this House. I come down to the South of England, and here I see the disregard of amenities at every turn. That is one side of the amenities connected with building and ribbon development. There is another side. We have a land of varied beauty. There is no country of its size which contains so much beauty as ours. The hills are beauty, and the rugged contours and the conformation of beauty in our hill districts is so much more effective than we can find in any mountainous country in the world. There is a blending of colours, particularly of greens of more varied softness and richness than you can find in any country in the world. Nevertheless, every day in our industrial districts we witness much more desecration of beauty than could be found elsewhere.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) has time and time again earned the thanks of us all for drawing attention to one aspect of the matter, and we ought to put a monument to him on the top of the highest pit heap standing in this country—although I hope it will not be a very high one. There are thousands of pit heaps in this country, ugly mounds, formless and colourless, drab and ugly in every aspect and left standing without any protest at all, simply because poor people live there. In this House and in the country there is a kind of idea that ugliness does not matter to the poor, but it does matter. I do not say that the attitude is general, but it is certainly there. If this House were as keen and as susceptible to ugliness in working-class quarters as it is to ugliness elsewhere, something would have been done about it long ago. There is no appreciation that the worker's life needs just as much of this kind of relief and that the worker is just as fond of beauty as anybody else.
I am a great lover of rivers. If there is anything more beautiful than a beautiful tree, it is a beautiful river. What do we do with our rivers? I do not think there is one river in this country which can be used freely by the people. Go to the Continent of Europe and you will see people disporting themselves on the river banks, bathing and playing all

kinds of games. That is not possible in England. I could not name three rivers that were fit to bathe or to play in because of the pollution that goes on day by day. Some years ago I raised the question in this House, and an inquiry took place in South Wales, as a consequence, into the pollution of the rivers in that area. I read the reports of the inquiry, issued, I think, by the Ministry of Health, setting forth the facts of pollution by coal dust and sulphuric acid. I have seen the changes that have taken place, and I stand horror-stricken. There is not only considerable neglect of the maintenance of our rivers in a fit condition, but there is also a large measure of vested interest persisting in enjoying the right to pollute those rivers.
I hope that the Motion is not the last we shall hear of this matter. We should thank the Mover, and also the Seconder. I have converted him. As to the reference to the Forestry Commission, if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman wants examples, let him take Lancashire, and when he has finished there let him go down to Durham. I hope that the House will realise that this is a subject of immense interest and one that calls to each and all of us for immediate attention. I hope that we shall not divide upon this Motion, and that it is not the last we shall hear of the subject.

Resolved,
That this House, recognising the importance of the preservation of amenities, wishes to call attention to the desirability of strengthening the Advertisements Regulation Acts and to the anxiety that exists with respect to the activities of the Forestry Commission in the Lake District and other areas of great natural beauty.

QUAIL PROTECTION BILL [Lords].

Order [3rd December] that the Bill be committed to a Standing Committee, read, and discharged.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Friday.—[Sir T. Moore.]

Orders of the Day — POOR LAW (AMENDMENT) (No. ) BILL.

Read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain A. Hope.]

Adjourned accordingly at One Minute after Eleven o'Clock.